The Never Ending Democratization of the Philippines 101 Conclusion In theory, the separation of powers and system of checks and balances of the presidential form of government aim at preventing the abuse of power and the protection of the rights of the people. The co-equal and coordinate branches of government are meant to ensure such goals of a democratic polity. However, the actual practice of the presidential form of government in the Philippines deviates from this theoretical perspective. The president, in accordance with the 1935 Constitution, had abolished Congress and controlled the Supreme Court during the martial law period. Under the 1987 Constitution, the presidency had also encroached on the legislative power of the purse. Hence, instead of a system of checks and balances, the vast powers of the presidency have allowed the incumbent to dominate the legislature, judiciary, and constitutional bodies. It is this executive hegemony that has undermined and weakened the legislature, judiciary and constitutional bodies and has stalled the democratization of our country. These vast powers of the presidency enable the incumbent to employ delegative authority that benets him/her and relatives, friends, and political allies. Weak horizontal accountability, corruption, and clientelism go together in the Philippine presidential government. It has prevented the government from effectively dealing with the country's chronic economic and social problems. Indicators of the quality of life (longevity, knowledge, and standard of living) have shown no marked improvement for most of Filipinos. From the institutional perspective, the agenda for reforms might be pursued grandly or incrementally. Grand reforms are in the form of systemic change through the revision of the constitution. Incremental reforms are in the form of more modest amendment or revision of statutes. Grand reforms such as the adoption of a parliamentary form of government and the federal system require very careful consideration because of possible unintended consequences. Moreover, this approach has proved highly divisive. The more prudent course to take is the incremental approach. In the post-Edsa period, the establishment of LEDAC through legislation went almost unnoticed. But as we have seen, this advisory council could serve as a possible platform for further legislative oversight. The restoration of the power of the purse to Congress is the priority. Thanks to the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court had taken the initial step of restoring to Congress the power of the purse. It has ruled that the PDAF and DAP are unconstitutional. The implementation of the budget should now be transparent and controllable by Congress. The reform effort should also concentrate on the existing mechanisms for executive-legislative-judicial coordination. The amendment of the implementing rules and regulations of the LEDAC and JELACC to create the subcommittee of budget would enable leaders of Congress and the Supreme Court to have another institutional access to information about budget releases, realignments, and savings. The availability of this information could prevent the employment of delegative authority similar to the pork barrel scandal.