Rethinking Democratization in the Philippines 189 hegemony over the legislature and judiciary constitutes an obstacle to democratic consolidation.4 In the context of a “delegative democracy”, the executive clearly exercises superior powers over the legislature and judiciary and the formal checks and balances mandated by the constitution seldom work. Ronas discusses extensively the well-established specific manifestations of executive powers over the legislature and judiciary such as the president's decree-making powers under the executive's military power, veto powers over legislation, appointment powers, control over the budget process, immunity from suits, and the difficulty of impeaching the president, among others. But why is an overly strong executive vis-à-vis the legislature and the judiciary a problem for democratic consolidation? One simple reasoning goes back to the dangers inherent in the exercise of power which is not restrained by institutional or legal means. If one combines this with an all too human predisposition to deploy power for selfish, private ends, then the risks that the substantial powers of the executive could be abused are certainly magnified. However, a fuller understanding of the problem requires an examination of the institutional context of presidential systems. For instance, Latin America which is dominated by presidential systems also shares with the Philippines this similar political tradition of strong presidents and weak legislatures. There is strong comparative empirical evidence that presidents who are much more powerful vis-à-vis their legislatures create problems of instability. One study by Shugart and Carey shows that: Systems that score high on presidential powers, in particular those that are extreme on presidential legislative powers, are often those systems with the greatest trouble sustaining stable democracy. Systems that give presidents considerable powers over the composition of the cabinet but are also low on separation of survival of executive and assembly [legislature] powers belong to “troubled cases” (1992: 148). It is logically tempting to argue that we need strong presidents who can ensure the efficiency and coherence of policy outputs in the face of legislatures made up of individuals parochially elected and representing localized district interests. This problem is aggravated by the absence of a strong party system which further empowers the president to act, in effect, as the sole aggregator of the national policy agenda with little input from parties and other organized political groupings. As Ronas points out, an alternative response to an overly strong president is to strengthen the powers of the legislature, otherwise the presidency loses its accountability to the assembly and magnifies the risks of