It is well known that even though Presidentialism has long been the element that shapes the political landscape in the Philippines, it has been facing, during the post- Marcos era, extreme challenges. To begin with, the regime in question has long been facing challenges from Congress. A second source of pressure comes from the presidents themselves. The new constitutional 1987 enactment has greatly diminished presidential power and has led most subsequent presidents to seek the alteration of the current regime. The intention of the presidents to replace Presidentialism with Parliamentarism has nonetheless been fruitless. Not only have such intentions been often boycotted by the court, Congress and a variety of people's organizations, but they also have been debated over and queried by the entirety of the society in the Philippines. In order to comprehend these disputes, and examine the situation as far as the survival of Presidentialism is concerned, this author will utilize the theories of Constitutionalism. In doing so, this article seeks to shed light on the situation as well as provide a careful re-examination regarding the feasibility of Parliamentarianism in the Philippines.