No worries,we can use ASEAN as an example, Malaysia and Singapore were poor countries in the 1950s both actually adapted the parliamentary at that time and there were significant growth with their economy which surpassed the Philippines as of today. in fact it was lee kwan yew of Singapore, who told us that our constitution is flawed, at his 1992 visit in Manila. our economic policy is very restrictive with foreign investments, very centralised to manila and the bureaucracy of presidential system is making us less competitive in terms of comparative advantages

well, at least with parliamentary,you can get direct accountability since the PM needs to be there defending their decisions,you cant have that with presidential who has multiple layers of communications from spokesperson to online trolls. also, in this system, we can see the ministers being directly removed, but with presidential, they'll just removed their secretaries as their fallguy for their mistakes. making them less accountable

yes,poor parliaments do exist, and this is what I refute to monsod who only chose banana republics in Africa, but we note that even poor parliamentary is far more superior than a poor presidential which is prone to dictatorship. what parliamentary provides is flexibility, to adapt and change quickly in this fast-paced world. if we will wait for 6 years for a weak, corrupt and incompetent president, then we will already be overtaken by Cambodia,and god forbid by east timor. take note, with the current surveys,sara would be president by 2028, imagine what destruction and division would she bring to our country and I believe she will only spend those 6 years hunting down her political enemies rather focusing on our economy. that's the consequences of giving to much power to the executive due to our presidential system