This paper assesses the argument of the superior democratic survival record of parliamentary over presidential forms of government in the comparative constitutional design literature used by Filipino parliamentary advocates in calling for a shift to a parliamentary form of government in the Philippines. The paper does this by tapping the other side of the comparative constitutional design literature that is critical of the pro-parliamentary position. The main argument of this literature is that the impressive empirical evidence used to support the claimed superiority of the parliamentary over the presidential systems in ensuring democratic survivability suffers from fatal methodological flaws. The paper argues that if these Raws are considered they would have serious conceptual and policy implications to the pro parliamentary position in the Philippines