Trust our solons to make the most inane and opportunistic suggestions.
I had to laugh when I read about the suggestion of some of our lawmakers to pass a Succession Bill in case of a failure of elections next year. The proposed bill will give powers to Congress to appoint a temporary president.
First off, if you were disgusted/appalled/turned off by this suggestion, then the parliamentary form of government is not for you. The set-up that our lawmakers are proposing is akin to a parliamentary form of government. The parliamentary system, in a nutshell, is when we vote for the legislators, and the legislators vote for the prime minister. So when the issue of the parliamentary system in charter change comes up, remember your reaction when you first heard of the Succession Bill, and base you decision with that in mind.
Second, I don't know if the proponents of the bill know their law (as they should, they are the ones who make them in the first place), then it would be patently clear to them that what they are proposing is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides that the president should be voted at large. An exception to this is if in case president resigns, dies, becomes permanently disabled or is removed from office. in such a case, the line of succession will apply i.e. Vice President (gasp!), Senate President (double gasp!), House Speaker (triple gasp!). Another exception is when there is an extra-constitutional move to replace the president (e.g. EDSA, but this will not likely happen in the near future). So there is no way for congressmen to give themselves the power to choose who the president would be, whether acting or not, and whether there is a failure of elections or not.
Photo: fireflythegreat , Flickr, Creative Commons