Bicameral gov't is still best for us

I might have been open to the idea of a Parliamentary form of gov't before, but now I know a change to Parliamentary will only make things worse for us under Arroyo and her cohorts.

the ones pushing for CHA CHA (Arroyo, de Venecia, Prospero Pichay and Nograles etc.) have zero credibility and are looking out for their own self interest in my opinion. And you don't put these people (and their media hacks in PHILSTAR) in charge of doing something as important as rewriting the Constitution.

The harder they push for a unicameral form of gov't (screw checks and balances), the more turned off people are about Charter Change (except maybe for the Bong Austero types out there, lol.)

Neal Cruz has more:

THE MORE PRO-ADMINISTRATION CONgressmen try to convince us that we should change the Constitution to effect a shift to a parliamentary system of government, the more the people are convinced that we should not. Why? Because by their forced arguments and “illogical logic,” they are showing that they, the present congressmen, are the worst people who can monkey around with the Constitution. If this were a basketball game, their persistence can be called “forcing through.”

What they’re proving is that a unicameral legislature, such as what they’re advocating, could be the worst thing for us—especially if they were to remain as members of Parliament. They are showing how, under a unicameral system of government, we would be at the mercy of Ali Baba and his thieves or, worse, of the Mafia.

The congressmen are showing that they will push through with what they want even if the people don’t want it as shown by the surveys. They’re supposed to be the representatives of the people, but they’re working only for themselves—and to hell with the people.

A change in the Constitution may be more acceptable to the people if it is done through an elected constitutional convention. But the congressmen don’t want that. They want to be the ones to mangle the Charter because they have selfish motives. They want to shape it to their advantage.

Tapos ito pa:

One of the two prosperous Prosperos in the House of Representatives (Pichay, the other is surnamed Nograles) told a forum last Saturday that a new Parliament would have a prime minister, a speaker and a president. President Macapagal-Arroyo would continue as president and chief executive, he said.

Ganun pala! Why change the Charter at all if we would continue to have GMA as President, Joe de Venecia as Speaker, and Prospero Pichay as prime minister? That would be going from bad to worse. Then we would have the Three Stooges running the country.

In other words, a parliamentary government will achieve nothing for us; but it will abolish the Senate and allow the congressmen to run wild and loot the nation blind. And that would be the only change we will have in such a system. Tuloy ang ligaya for the rest of the gang.

So it has become clear that we need the Senate now more than ever. It is the only body—short of a coup or a full-blown revolution—that can temper the abuses of the House and the executive. The Supreme Court is too slow and its members may be tempted and co-opted by the executive.

In short, the present Constitution and a bicameral legislature, even with all their imperfections, are still the best for us. We can improve the Charter later on, after the present congressmen are out of power. Then we can amend the Charter leisurely, carefully and responsibly. In writing constitutions, haste still makes waste.

I agree.

Si MLQ3 naman ay hindi kontra sa Parliamentary form of gov't per se, but:

In political terms, much as I’ve often criticized him, Fidel Ramos was right when he proposed that the country gamble on a unicameral parliament, provided the country witnessed what might have been a breathtaking surrender of power and ambition by those in office. Do it now, immediately, he said, even if it means affecting the terms of all incumbents. That he did so, in what was a startling act of political opportunism, fatally affected the willingness of those in power and the public to embrace an idealistic proposal. So it failed. And for the same reasons, those sincerely pushing for their own flavor of political changes shouldn’t be surprised that public skepticism and hostility have greeted their subsequent efforts to force the adoption of a different system of government.

The FVR CHA CHA failed because because the main thrust of Tabako's PIRMA campaign was selfish in nature: to lift the ban on his term limit and allow him to run for president again.

Erap's very modest CONCORD proposal prioritizing economic reforms would have been popular today with the majority of Filipinos and businessmen (as was his proposal to ban pork barrel), but back during Erap's time, it failed because the guy pushing for it (Erap) had no credibility with the elite and civil society.

But can anybody seriously argue that the current Cha Cha to junk and rewrite the entire constitution to Arroyo, JDV, and Prospero's liking is anything but beneficial to the Malacanang occupant and the incumbents in power?

With Arroyo, it's even win-win because this current CHA CHA was meant as a GRAND DIVERSION to buy off the congressmen's support. If CHA CHA succeeds, Arroyo gets more power. If not, then it would have done it's job of diverting people's attention from GLORIAGATE.