We have a debate guys! My side is presidential. Help me :)
Give me some details on how can I defend it.

Okay, are we arguing which is better? More effective? More efficient? What?

I'm sure that we would not tell you how to win an argument pointlessly, we would need to know the facts. Then, we would tell you what we think, not just how to win an argument with, well, anyone.

Okay, are we arguing which is better? More effective? More effecient? What?

I'm sure that we would not tell you how to win an arguement pointlessly, we would need to know the facts. Then, we would tell you what we think, not just how to win an arguement with, well, anyone.

[B]okay, your right.
I'm not asking how to win the debate or what. I'm so soorry if I didn't put all the details about our debate.B]

I'm from the side of presidential government and we have to prove that it is much better(for the PHILIPPINES only) than the parliamentary.

http://www.geocities.com/benign0/agr-disagr/12-5-parliament.html

Defend this THE PRESIDENTIAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES: A CRITIQUE (http://www.nenepimentel.org/speeches/20080206_Mexico.asp)

[B]okay, your right.
I'm not asking how to win the debate or what. I'm so soorry if I didn't put all the details about our debate.B]

I'm from the side of presidential government and we have to prove that it is much better(for the PHILIPPINES only) than the parliamentary.

I think you are actually on a hiding to nothing. The presidential systems have demonstrated many excesses because too much power is placed in the hands of one individual. A president is effectively an elected king. I think you might find many examples in Philippines history.

A Parliamentary system divorces the Head of State from the legislature in a manner which limits the power of the head of state and keeps the power in the hands of the leglislature where the actions of elected officials can be questioned and sanctioned.

Whereas I would argue that having no separation between executive and legislative functions is in itself a weakness . This fusing of power could also lead to tyranny as we have seen often .

But there are strengths and weaknesses in both systems . It should be an interesting debate.

Whereas I would argue that having no separation between executive and legislative functions is in itself a weakness . This fusing of power could also lead to tyranny as we have seen often .

But there are strengths and weaknesses in both systems . It should be an interesting debate.

In what way do you think there is no separation in a parliamentary system. In a monarchy there is no separation and that certainly is a weakness, but in a modern parliamentary system there is separation. This separation does not preempt and prevent the actions of a third party acting illegally as in Fiji where there was a military takeover.

The PM is beholden to the majority party... no ? Does the PM have the right to toss out a decision by the parliament ? No .

Your own Constitution section Section 64 mandates that the various executive Ministers sit in Parliament .Clearly the very intent of that provision was to prevent the separation I speak of . What you have is the executive assuming legislative functions . So no ;there is no separation of powers .
Further ;not only does your legislature make the laws,they decide how the executive is to administer the laws .

The only separation I see is judicial review.

This separation does not preempt and prevent the actions of a third party acting illegally as in Fiji where there was a military takeover.
I'm more concerned of the tyranny of the majority .

The PM is beholden to the majority party ...no ? Does the PM have the right to toss out a decision by the parliament ? No .

Your own Constitution section Section 64 mandates that the various executive Ministers sit in Parliament .Clearly the very intent of that provision was to prevent the separation I speak of . What you have is the executive assuming legislative functions . So no ;there is no separation of powers .
Further ;not only does your legislature make the laws,they decide how the executive is to administer the laws .

The only separation I see is judicial review.
.
I'm more concerned of the tyranny of the majority .

I think you overlook the caucus system which has the ruling party agree on policy before it reaches parliament. If there is a hostile parliament, the legislation doesn't pass whether the PM wants it or not, this feature exists in both systems, but if there is a hostile parliament this may mean there is a power change or an election, where as in a presidential system you may be left with a lame duck president who doesn't represent the views of the electorate. In a parliamentary system the head of state takes the advice of the leader of the legislature unless there is constitutional crisis.

We have recently experienced what you would describe as the tyranny of the majority, it was resolved by an election where the decisions of that majority were reversed, or revised depending on your point of view and we are back to the status quo which is the tyranny of the minority, with a minority parties holding the balance of power. This is the way our forefathers designed the system. Better this than government by the whim of the president which is apparent in so many presidential systems

Yes that of course is possible .WE almost saw that recently in Honduras where the President tried to illegally change the Constitution. But the Hondurans;using the law as defined in the Constitution prevented his attempted take over .

A Constitutional system, regardless of how it deals with the executive branch ,that doesn't limit the power of the central government across the board is not a good one in my opinion.