104 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy The substantive notion of democracy expands the procedural notion that is mainly focused on the electoral system. The substantive notion argues to include the outcomes of the democratic procedure and the broader social values associated with democracy (Whitehead 2002: 12) Democracy in this sense is seen as both a means and an end. It is not only a description of a political system but also a statement of its values. Democracy is not merely about the method of choosing the leaders, but should also yield policies or outcomes that would “expand freedoms” (Sen 1999: 35-53). In the view of Amartya Sen it should be able to address the social and economic problems of poverty, ignorance and disease. These outcomes are closely linked to what was referred to as the factor of legitimacy and performance (Abueva in Miranda 1997: 44). The conception of democracy as a political method would be empty if it is not linked to outcomes that advance human development (Munck 2009: 12627).Beyond its procedural characteristics, democracy is “ultimately about individual dignity and collective decency” (Reynolds in Diamond and Plattner 2009: 224). In this context, the definition of “modern democracy” by Professor Felipe B. Miranda, because it conjoins the procedural and substantive notions of democracy, is taken by this study as the appropriate meaning of democracy. He defines it as follows: Modern political democracy is a system of governance in which the authorities or rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens acting mostly indirectly through (1) the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives and (2) their involvement in politically active civil society groups. As a system of governance, it demonstrably promotes—however slowly or gradually and even allowing for occasional, temporary reverses—a progressively human quality of life for its citizens within fifty years of a regime's formal, democratic initiation (Miranda 2011:2). The concept “democratization” is associated with the dismantling of an authoritarian regime and its adoption of democratic political structures. This concept refers to the transition of an authoritarian regime into a “consolidated democracy”. The process of democratization is facilitated or hindered by many factors, as mentioned above. In this study, the focus is the constitutional structure of the Presidential form government, in particular the “species” of Presidential government called “delegative democracy” (O'Donnell in Diamond and Plattner 1996: 94-110). This kind of democratization “rests on the premise that whoever wins the election to the presidency is thereby entitled to govern as he or she sees fit, constrained only by hard facts of existing power relations and by a constitutionally limited term of office” (O'Donnell Ibid.).