The appointment of a "governador general" over what was formerly the Philippine colony of Spain (1592-1898) changed all that. He sat for a term of four years before being replaced by another Spaniard. And yet the governor general did not make the decisions but simply ruled in accordance to the interests of Spain. This system of rule being foreign perhaps did not so much affect Filipino way of governing since we were not given government participation at that time. What it may have affected though was our acquiescence to government laws as citizens. Despite our EDSAs 1 and 2 a vast majority of us lack that healthy spirit of militant citizenry. This is not to say one must join political parties or rally every so often. But instead a Filipino should take an active part at something positive called "social responsibility." This may be as simple as sending letters to the editor, reporting leaky street pipes, throwing garbage properly. Is it perhaps part of Philippine culture to be generally indifferent?

The colonizers who did affect government rule were the Americans. Our present democratic system and its three branches of government is patterned after theirs. These branches were created in theory to be co-equal. However, in the Philippine scenario they are not. The branch that has the most powers is the executive.

Is then, the "pangulo regime" boon or bane?

Ever since Commonwealth, we have witnessed a string of presidents who o possess common traits. For one, practically all of them come from the upper classes of society. All of them, in one way or another have had US backing to support their presidency. Most of the time, (except for the case of former President Estrada) the formula for the Filipino leader has been a good education. But perhaps the thing that stands out most is that all past Philippine presidents have more or less run the country in the same way a datu and his staff of maharlikas would. Even if congress pushed for a particular bill, the president still had the the last say by vetoing it or not. Which is why EDSAs 1 and 2 were nothing short of miracles. EDSA 2 was a first since before then, a presidential impeachment was literally unheard of.

Yet, despite EDSA 1 and its sequel, we find repetition of the "pangulo regime" to this day. Just recently, Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo allowed US troops into the country to help solve the Abu Sayyaf kidnap for ransom problem in Mindanao. This she did, bypassing Vice Pres. Teofista Guingona's say on the matter. Guingona, who is also head of foreign affairs, was clearly against US military presence in the southern Philippines. Newspapers say she now gets her cues from former Department of Foreign Affairs secretary Roberto Romulo. This is issue however, is another matter all by itself.

People talk of changing the government's system to a parliamentary. This is nothing new. It is simply exchanging one foreign system of government for another. Whether or not we do, some form of a "pangulo regime" is likely to resurface. For all its dangers to tend towards some extent of a dictatorship (as in the case of Ferdinand Marcos), the "pangulo regime" may indeed be the best word for our so-called democracy. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.