There are two pure systems of government, namely the presidential and parliamentary systems. In a presidential system, government is characterized by constitutional and political separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government (Heywood 2019, 320). It is based on the application of the doctrine of separation of powers. This system establishes a relationship characterized by a combination of independence and interdependence (checks and balances) between the two branches.

The separation of powers principle means that each of the three functions of government, i.e. legislation, execution adjudication) should be entrusted to a separate branch of government. Its purpose is to fragment government power in such a way as to defend liberty and keep tyranny at bay. It demands independence, i.e. no overlapping of personnel between branches, but also implies interdependence, in the form of shared powers to create a network of checks and balances. (Heywood 2019, 345).

The classic example of a presidential system is found in the United States (US) and, of course, in the Philippines, as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. The presidential system is characterized by the following features:

– the executive and the legislature are separately elected;
– there is a formal separation of the personnel between the legislative and the executive branches;
– the executive cannot be removed by the legislature (except, possibly, through impeachment);
– the president or executive cannot ‘dissolve’ the legislature; and
– executive authority is concentrated in the hands of the president (Heywood 2019, 320).

In contrast, under the parliamentary system, the government governs in and through the assembly, or parliament or legislature, with the executive branch being drawn from, and accountable to, the assembly (Heywood 2019, 342). Thus, there is a so-called fusion of the executive and legislative branches. The classic example of a parliamentary system is the United Kingdom (UK), also known as the Westminster model.

The primary features of the parliamentary system are as follows:

– ‘Governments’ are formed as a result of assembly or legislative elections;
– The personnel of government are drawn from and accountable to the assembly or legislature;
– The ‘government’ stays based on the confidence of the legislature and can be removed if it loses that confidence;
– ‘Government’ can, in most cases, ‘dissolve’ the assembly or legislature; and
– Parliamentary executives are generally collective. (Heywood 2019, 342-343)

‘Government’ in a parliamentary system usually refers to the political executive, or the prime minister and his or her cabinet. Their roles will be discussed in succeeding pages.

In between these two pure systems is the hybrid or semi-presidential system, which is the prevailing system in France since the Fifth Republic and in Finland. In this system, there is a ‘dual executive’ in which a separately elected president works together with a prime minister and a cabinet drawn from and responsible to Parliament. This system works in practice depending on a delicate balance between the personal authority and popularity of the president, on the one hand, and the political complexion of parliament, on the other. Semi-presidential systems range from ‘balanced’ semi-presidentialism where parliament exercises effective constraint on the presidency, to forms of ‘asymmetrical’ semi-presidentialism, where parliament lacks independence and is routinely controlled by the executive. In the case of Russia, the imbalance between the two branches is so severe that it is considered an example of ‘superpresidentialism’ (Heywood 2019, 345). The Philippines from most of the martial law period until 1986 can be described as an example of an asymmetrical semi-presidentialism, where the executive under Marcos controlled the Batasang Pambansa.

The operationalization of all the features of each system is decided by each political entity through its constitution and other laws. Actual operation of each system of government may vary from the ideal models.

We can distinguish three distinct branches of government, namely the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. It is common assumption that the legislature makes laws or enacts legislation, the executive implements laws or executes laws, and the judiciary interprets laws or adjudicates on the meaning of laws. However, this is a very limited view of the functions performed by the three branches of government. Contexts matter, functions evolve over time, and relationships among the three branches are dynamic. This will be explained further in the succeeding sub-sections.

Executive

In its broadest sense, the executive is the branch of government that is responsible for the implementation of laws and policies. More commonly, the term is used in a narrower sense to describe the smaller body of decision-makers who take overall responsibility for the direction and coordination of government policy. This group of senior figures is often called the political executive, which is roughly equivalent to ‘the government of the day’, or ‘the administration’, as opposed to the official executive, or the bureaucracy.

The political executive performs or is expected to perform a number of leadership roles. These are ceremonial, policy-making, popular, bureaucratic, and crisis leadership. However, there are three dimensions of power that shape the influence of political executives. These include: (1) the formal dimensions of power, or the constitutional roles and responsibilities of executive officers and the institutional frameworks in which they operate; (2) the informal dimension of power, or the role of personality, political skills and experience, and the impact of factors such as parties and the media; and (3) the external dimensions of power, or the political, economic and diplomatic context of government, and the broader pressures that bear on the executive branch (Heywood 2019, 316-320).

In a parliamentary system, the executive powers are split into two: (1) the president or a monarch, considered the head of state, who performs mostly ceremonial functions; and (2) a head of government, usually called the prime minister, who handles performing most of the political powers of the executive. The prime minister and his or her cabinet are drawn from the legislature (particularly from the majority party or the ruling coalition of parties) and are accountable to them. In a presidential system like the Philippines and the US, the president is both head of state and head of government. The president is usually directly elected by the people.

Virtually all political executives feature a cabinet of some sort. Cabinets enable a government to present a collective face to legislatures and the public. Cabinets are an administrative device designed to ensure the effective coordination of government policy.

The formal features, powers and functions of the Philippine president and executive branch in general are in the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VII). However, the Philippine executive has also evolved based on context and history (See Rebullida 2006).

Legislature

‘Legislature’ can be used interchangeably with two other terms: ‘assembly’ and ‘parliament’. A legislature refers to both houses or chambers in bicameral (composed of two houses, each composed of representatives) systems. For instance, the legislature in the Philippines and the US refers to the two houses of Congress, namely the Senate and the House of Representatives.

One of the key features of any political system is the relationship between legislative and executive authority. In a parliamentary system of government, we already noted that the executive emanates from the legislature and is therefore accountable to it. In a presidential system, there is a system of separation of powers that is supposed to ensure that both branches are formally independent from each other and separately elected. However, the principle of checks and balances also prevails; for instance, the Philippine Congress has oversight functions to check on whether the executive and its agencies are performing their functions based on the Constitution and specific laws. The President, meanwhile, can veto or disapprove any legislation passed by the two Houses, thereby preventing that consolidated bill from becoming a law.

The principal functions of the legislature are as follows:

– Legislation;
– Representation;
– Scrutiny and oversight;
– Political recruitment; and
– Legitimacy (Heywood 2019, 346-350).

The legislature is typically vested with law-making powers in the hope that the laws made will be authoritative and binding. However, legislatures do not always monopolize legislative authority. In terms of representation, legislatures provide a link between the government and the people. The power of a legislature within the political system is usually seen as an important index of democratic government, but it is less clear how this representative function is carried out in practice. legislatures have increasingly become scrutinizing bodies, fulfilling oversight functions in order to facilitate accountability. In some cases however, when the balance of powers are skewed heavily toward the head of state, legislatures’ functions and powers are reduced, and they need to operate in an environment that pressures them to promote the legitimacy of a regime. Thus, in some authoritarian states, dictators and autocrats still “allow” the existence of legislatures because they no longer serve as a check against excesses or abuses of the executive, as what happened to the Batasang Pambansa under martial law and Ferdinand Marcos Sr..

The formal features, powers and functions of the Philippine Congress as the legislative branch in general are in the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article VI). The current Philippine legislature has and continues to evolve based on context and history (See Caoili 2006).

Judiciary

The judiciary is the branch of government that applies the laws written by the legislature, it is empowered to interpret the laws as written through their decisions rendered in legal disputes. Thus, the central function of judges is to adjudicate on the meaning of law in the sense that they interpret or ‘construct’ law. It is said that one of the chief characteristics of the judiciary in liberal-democratic systems is that judges are strictly independent and non-political actors. However, this is only an ideal. In reality, judges are also political in two senses. On the one hand, there is external bias derived from the influence of political bodies, such as parties, the assembly. and ‘government’ or administration, are able to exert on the judiciary (Heywood 2019, 307-311).

Judicial power in the Philippines is vested in the Supreme Court and lower courts mentioned in the Constitution (Article VIII) and other laws. The 1987 Constitution provides the judicial branch strong independent powers, in part as a corrective measure post-martial law period (Atienza and Baylon 2019). The judiciary’s exercise of power is also affected by its relationship with the two other branches of government.

Aside from looking at how branches of government relate with one another, we can also look at how power is distributed and negotiated in terms of central and local relations. All modern states are divided on a territorial basis between central (national) and peripheral (regional, provincial, or local) institutions. The two most common forms of territorial organization found in the modern world are the federal and unitary systems. A third form, confederation, has generally proved to be unsustainable.

Over one-third of the world’s population is governed by states that have some kind of federal structure. Examples are the United States, Brazil, Germany, and Malaysia. The central feature of a federal form is a sharing of sovereignty between central and peripheral institutions. The following are common features of federal systems:

– Two relatively autonomous levels of government;
– Written constitution;
– Constitutional arbiter (the judiciary); and
– Representatives like the legislature (Heywood 2019, 393-398).

Federal systems are favored by some political systems and political actors because

– They give regional and local interests a constitutionally guaranteed political voice;
– In diffusing government power, it creates a network of checks and balances that helps to protect individual liberty; and
– Federalism has provided an institutional mechanism through which fractured societies have maintained unity and coherence (Heywood 2019, 398-399).

However, the vast majority of contemporary states have unitary systems of government, e.g. the UK, France, Japan and the Philippines. Unitary systems vest sovereign power in a single, national institution (Heywood 2019, 399-340). Two distinct institutional forms of peripheral authority exist in unitary states: (1) local governments and (2) local legislatures.

Local government refers to a government that is specific to a particular locality, for example, a village or barangay, legislative district, municipality, city, or province. Furthermore, a local government is a form of government that has no share in sovereignty; thus, it is subordinate to central authority or in a federal system, to state or regional authority. It is a form of government that is found in federal and unitary systems. What makes local government particularly important in unitary systems is that in most cases, it is the only form of government outside or below the central government (Heywood 2019, 400).

Local governments are administratively necessary and are closer to the people in providing services. Elected local officials have democratic legitimacy that enables them to extend their formal powers and responsibilities. In practice, central-local relationships are conducted through a process of bargaining and negotiation rather than dictates from central to local. The balance is also influenced by factors, such as political culture, established traditions of local autonomy and regional diversity, and the nature of the party system. Unlike in a federal system, upholding local autonomy relies mostly on self-restraint of the center. This means that the degree of decentralization in unitary systems varies significantly, both over time and from country to country (Heywood 2019, 400).

Devolution, as has been legislated in the Philippines, establishes the greatest possible measure of decentralization in a unitary system of government – short, that is, of its transformation into a federal system.

The Philippines, as mentioned earlier, is a unitary state but establishes devolution through the 1987 Constitution (Article X) and the 1991 Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7120).