DAY TWENTY-FIVE
Ann on Charter Change

I think shifting to parliamentary form of government is not just necessary but timely. first, it's been 100 years since the present form was implemented, and the aging of the current form of government would not afford us to effect the necessary development. second, the parliamentary form of government will fix all our institutions, a whole new face, whole new expectations. third, since the executive and legislative branches of government will already be merged, less gridlock. better for projects that should require immediate funding. problem with the presidential, when there are projects conceptualized by the executive departments even so much thought of, the congress would always block the funding by not giving enough approrpiations to these departments. the parliamentary form will resolve the problem because the project proponents will be the same to give the funding. there are lots of unfunded projects in the government which are very good but because of politics, were deprived of funds. fourth, the parliamentary government will give importance to technocrats. departments or ministries will be rationalized in such a way that those non-functional offices or bureaus will be abolished. fifth, the duality of government will provide a demarcration between politicos and statesmen. politicos will vie for the ceremonial post of president; the intelligent statemen's arena will be the parliament.

I think the change is timely. there is no harm in making a shift especially if the old form has been proven to be ineffective anymore. moreover, some provisions in our present constitution are already obsolete, means applicable pa nung time nila aguinaldo..why, even the American Government conssistently effects ammendments to their charter to suit the current needs?