As talks for constitutional reform is on, Hilario G. Davide Jr.'s quotes on the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines are posted on Facebook. It's an irony that Davide Jr. was once a UN diplomat. Again, UN as in United Nations. Then he has the nerve to say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the "only constitution" that he knows that is pro-God, pro-Filipino, pro-people, pro-poor, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-human rights, pro-women, pro-environment among others. That alone made me laugh because the moment I heard it, I said, "Huh? Has he even bothered to read other constitutions?" The only pro-environment constitution? Please, Singapore has had better environmental laws. Don't tell me that other countries aren't pro-life or what? I wonder what even led him to say that statement? It's at that point that made me ask, "Does Davide Jr. know how to bring the Philippines into the emerging Asian century?"
People are still thinking that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines needs absolutely no revision whatsoever. Never mind Article XVII was set just in case there are new laws that need to be passed. For example, the Negative List of the Philippines has been amended a couple of times such as the signing of the Public Services Act of 2022. A document from the University of the Philippines-Diliman, by Gerardo Sicat, also cites the four presidents from the late Fidel V. Ramos up to the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. It's one thing to talk about how Aquino III did that "economic miracle" and there's no need to change anything. Please, do you think there were no various new laws added or repealed during the whole time from Ramos and up to former Philippine president, Rodrigo R. Duterte? Yet, some people who called themselves Dilawans (Yellows) or now Kakampinks (kakampi means comrade or ally) are still saying, "No, we don't need any amendment or new law at all!" I wonder if they felt that Aquino III (whom they tend to elevate like he was some "perfect leader") did it by magic? I know some Aquino III supporters who don't have that kind of toxic stupidity as fighting others. At least some Kakampinks are now pushing for constitutional reform such as economist Andrew James Masigan, an open supporter of Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo.
Davide Jr.'s view on FDIs is just plain outright hilarious
It was in 2018 when Davide Jr. himself warned that the Philippines may become a colony of foreign investors. I simply had to laugh at what he said about FDIs. I really must laugh at the ignorance of the statement. I could really share this one since I feel a lot of stuff I experienced as a result of the failed Filipino First Policy of the late Carlos P. Garcia.
MANILA - The provisions of the Constitution on foreign ownership should remain because amending it may lead to the Philippines being a "colony" of foreign investors, a former chief justice said Monday.The Philippines has "one-fifth of the richest natural resources" and it was "designed that it should only be for Filipinos," said Hilario Davide Jr., a member of the commission that crafted the 1987 charter.
"If you remove the Filipino citizenship requirement in the exploitation of natural resources, on the acquisition of public lands, or even in mass media, in education, you remove the solemnity of nationalism," he told ANC's Headstart.
Davide said lawmakers should be guaranteed to be incorruptible because Congress can be prevailed upon by foreign interests in order to favor exploitation of the country's natural resources."One country may have businessmen so strong because they have the money. If you are in Congress, there might be a temptation to agree to certain propositions, to reduce the limit, for instance, of Filipino participation and increase the participation of foreigners," he said."In the end, we will become a colony of businessmen of other countries," he added.Davide said the 60-40 foreign equity ratio should stay also because the Philippine population is growing annually and they should have food security."What will you feed the people afterwards if all our assets here, natural assets, would be [granted] to foreign investors?...Congress should stick to it [60-40] and fully implement the same," he said.The Constitution restricts ownership of certain areas of investments to firms with at least 60-percent Filipino capital.The restriction also covers exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources through co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations.
It may be five years ago but I'm not going to stop laughing. It's 2023 now and this is brought back. Davide Jr. is still stuck in what the late Lee Kuan Yew would've called a third-world mentality. More people should read his book From Third World to First and not just quote about the Marcoses from it. This is what certainly fits Davide Jr.'s views on FDI taken from page 58 of the book:
The accepted wisdom of development economists at the time was that MNCs were exploiters of cheap land, labor, and raw materials. This "dependency school" of economists argued that MNCs continued the colonial pattern of exploitation that left the developing countries selling raw materials to and buying consumer goods from the advanced countries. MNCs controlled technology and consumer preferences and formed alliances with their host governments to exploit the people and keep them down. Third World leaders believed this theory of neocolonialist exploitation, but Keng Swee and I were not impressed. We had a real-life problem to solve and could not afford to be conscribed by any theory or dogma. Anyway, Singapore had no natural resources for MNCs to exploit. All it had were hard-working people, good basic infrastructure, and a government that was determined to be honest and competent. Our duty was to create a livelihood for 2 million Singaporeans. If MNCs could give our workers employment and teach them technical and engineering skills and management know-how, we should bring in the MNCs.
Earlier on, I mentioned Davide Jr. said that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the "only constitution" that he knows (I wonder if he analyzed other countries while he was a UN diplomat) that's pro-God, pro-people, pro-poor, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-human rights, pro-women, pro-environment, among others? It's not like as if other countries don't have their human rights, their anti-poverty programs, a conservative implementation of divorce laws (ex. in cases of dysfunctional marriages to save the spouse's well-being), and environmental laws.
If the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the "best in the world" then where's the evidence of that?
Right now, here's Masigan's statement from the Philippine Star, and wonder if Davide Jr. is aware of all of this:
As I have written many times before, the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution is a poison pill that impeded the development of the country for decades. Borne by a misguided sense of nationalism, the authors of the 1987 Constitution felt that by reserving certain industries exclusively for Filipinos (or Filipino majority), our natural resources would not be plundered by foreigners, nor would our sovereignty be overstepped. How wrong they were.
What these provisions did was deprive us of our fair share of foreign capital coming into the region. With so many industries restricted to foreigners coupled with stiff ownership conditions, investors naturally chose the open economies of Thailand, Singapore and lately, Vietnam rather than the Philippines. The Constitution, in effect, deprived us of valuable forex investments, technology transfer, tax revenues, export earnings and employment opportunities. It is one of the principal reasons why our manufacturing sector has not developed fully.
To illustrate how powerful an open economy can be, Vietnam opened their economy to foreign investors in 1986 and achieved newly industrialized status in just 35 years. From eking a living through subsistence farming, the average Vietnamese is now wealthier than the Filipino. All this was achieved by attracting foreign capital.
The country pays a steep price for our arcane, protectionist constitutional provisions. Let me cite some consequences. Precluding foreign participation in local industries has created monopolies and oligopolies owned by just a handful of families. These families earn scandalous profits even though they are inefficient.
In agriculture, banning foreigners from participating in the farm sector deprived us of new technologies to increase production and improve our logistics chains. So many farmers could have been lifted out of poverty with foreign infusions.
In media, the Philippines lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment and production capital despite our Americanized culture. Since foreign participation in media is prohibited by law, Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong and Paramount Studios in Taiwan. The Philippines lost out.
The biggest consequence, however, is in education. Since foreign learning institutions are not allowed to operate in the Philippines, we deprived ourselves of collaborations and learning transfers that would have uplifted our own educational standards. In contrast, Singapore benefitted immensely from having Yale University, Chicago University and INSEAD on their shores. It helped to advance Singaporean learning standards to a point where Singaporean universities are now counted among the top 50 in the world. The University of the Philippines ranks in the 400-500 range.
There are social consequences too. The lack of foreign participation is the reason why there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor. See, because the Constitution reserves certain industries exclusive for Filipinos, only the super rich have the capital and wherewithal to invest in lucrative but capital intensive business ventures. Our flawed Constitution is the reason why only 40 families control the country. Foreign participation could have democratized business opportunities and wealth.
That's why I really can't recommend Davide Jr. to help the Philippines with the need to catch up with the Asian Century. In this case, I'm going to recommend that Filipino politicians should learn from Mahbubani instead. I could care less if the advice came from a Filipino or a non-Filipino What I care more about now is that the advice is useful as the Philippines should rise up in the Asian Century. The advice of a foreigner or a Filipino is only useful if it's useful.
References
Books
Videos
Websites
"Eco Cha-cha and the poison pill" by Andrew J. Masigan (January 20, 2021)
Comments
Post a Comment