Yes, we should never forget what history teaches us. A classmate of mine, back in high school, wrote a simple and blunt essay called "History: A Teacher". I doubt he still has a soft copy, given it was already more than 20 years ago. I'd like to quote Duterte critic Andrew James Masigan wrote this in Philippine Star--something that should remain relevant:
I would never undervalue the 1987 Constitution. It dismantled the legal framework of a repressive regime and established the democratic institutions we enjoy today. For this, I am grateful.
The 1987 Constitution was crafted with the best of intentions. It sought to put the Filipino first in all aspects of governance and to level the playing field amongst sectors and peoples. But it is far from perfect. It failed to consider the importance of foreign capital and technologies and the stiff competition we would have to face to obtain them. In short, its economic provisions were short-sighted.
So despite the Constitution’s patriotic bravado, reserving certain industries exclusively for Filipinos (or a Filipino majority) worked to our peril. It deprived the nation of valuable foreign investments, technology transfers, tax revenues, export earnings and jobs.
The Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions stunted our development for 36 years. From 1987 to the close of the century, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand leapfrogged in development on the back of a deluge of foreign direct investments (FDIs). During that period, the Philippines’ share of regional FDIs lagged at a pitiful 3 percent in good years and 2 percent in normal years.
From the year 2000 up to the present, Vietnam and Indonesia took their fair share of FDIs, leaving the Philippines further behind. The country’s intake of foreign investments is less than half of what Vietnam and Indonesia realize. No surprise, our exports have also been the lowest among our peers. The lack of investments in manufacturing capacities have left us no choice but to export our own people.
Imbedded in the Constitution are industries in which foreigners are precluded. These include agriculture, public utilities, transportation, retail, construction, media, education, among others. Further, the Constitution limits foreigners from owning more than 40 percent equity in corporations. Foreigners are barred from owning land too. These provisions caused us to lose out on many investments which would have generated jobs, exports and taxes. Not too long ago, we lost a multibillion-dollar investment from an American auto manufacturing company that chose to invest in Thailand instead. We lost a multi-billion smartphone plant by Samsung, who located in Vietnam.
Sure, the Public Service, Foreign Investment and Trade Liberalization Acts were recently amended, allowing foreigners to participate in a wider berth of industries with less rigid conditions. But it is still not enough. The Philippines remains the least preferred investment destination among our peers.
Our flawed economic laws are the reason why our agricultural sector has not industrialized and why food security eludes us. It is also why our manufacturing sector has not fully developed. It is why we lost the opportunity to be Asia’s entertainment capital despite our Americanized culture (Netflix located its Asian headquarters in Singapore, Disney in Malaysia, MTV in Hong Kong and Paramount Studios in Taiwan). It is why our education standards are among the lowest in the world. It is why many industries are oligopolies owned by only a handful of families.
As for the form of government, I am willing to give the federal system a chance. Let’s face it, the current presidential system fails to provide the checks and balances for which it was intended. Senators and congressmen still vote according to party lines, albeit in a much slower legislative process. So yes, I am willing to try a new form of government because 36 years of insisting on a flawed system is insanity.
The world has changed since 1987. Our Constitution must keep up with these changes if we are to be competitive. This is why I support Charter change, except in the extension of term limits of public officials.
Did EDSA restore the rule of law? Yes! However, to say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect" and "absolutely needs no amendment" is blindness. Come on, if that were true then why is Article XVII even present in it?
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
Even more, Maria Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino (who died in 2009) even said the following:
You must define and protect our individual freedoms and rights; you must decide how our different institutions of state will relate to each other. Do not be distracted by political debates and matters of policy that do not belong within your constitution-making exercise. You are here appointed, by the people’s wish, to write a constitution; you are not here as elected politicians.
Bear in mind that you shall be pondering, debating and writing a constitution not only for our contemporaries with their present concerns, but also for succeeding generations of Filipinos whose first concerns we cannot presume to know beforehand. Future Filipinos must always be free to decide how to address these concerns as they arise. Even the wisest cures for present maladies should not be imposed on succeeding generations that will have their own unique problems and priorities.
True and long-lived constitutions, a wise justice has told me, should be broad enough to be able to meet every exigency we cannot foretell and specific enough to stoutly protect the essentials of a true democracy; in short, open-ended documents that will always be relevant. Remember that constitutional changes are not safe or easy to come by. Our first attempt at constitutional revision was followed by a dictatorship. And this, our second endeavor, was preceded by a revolution.
Future Filipinos and their legislatures and Supreme Courts can best assess and address the challenges they will meet if they enjoy the widest latitude of thought and action. In writing a constitution have the fullest confidence that the wisdom of our race is exhausted in us. Our race has grown in wisdom over time. I believe it will continue to do so.
Yours is indeed no easy task. On the other hand, depending on the result, yours will be no small glory. Our people have suffered much.
What worked in the past may not work in the future. That's why some businesses fail. Just think how cool it was to have a Nokia phone. I had a Nokia phone given during my high school graduation. However, who wants a Nokia now when there are other iPhone substitutes? There's Samsung, Sony, Xiaomi, Huawei, or any phone in the smartphone market! We need to look at what happened to Nokia and it could happen if we rely too much on EDSA. Here's something that Predictable Profits would tell us:
Despite its former dominance in the mobile phone industry, Nokia’s failure serves as a reminder of the importance of staying ahead of market trends and continuing to innovate in order to remain competitive.
It was October 1998, and Nokia was the industry leader in mobile phone sales all over the world. Since the early days of the mobile phone industry, Nokia had been synonymous with business success and quality products. The phones were available worldwide, covering low-end to high-end prices to ensure customer satisfaction.
By 1999, the company’s profit had reached $4 billion. It seemed that they could do no wrong. Even in June 2007, when Apple introduced the first iPhone, Nokia still retained 50% of the customer base. For a long time, its young leadership led the brand to success through loyal customers and repeat business.
But in 2010, things took a turn for the worse… It took only six years for Nokia to lose around 90% of its market value, and the company never recovered. Critical mistakes led to the mobile phone giant’s fall from grace.
Nokia’s history only serves to prove that no business is infallible, especially in the face of technological progress and changing customer expectations.
What were some of their critical mistakes?
Cocky leadership, a lack of vision, and inferior technology were the unholy trinity of errors that contributed to Nokia’s downfall. They ignored implied customer feedback, lost customer loyalty, and unlike most companies in the mobile phone space, failed to keep up with evolving services and tech. Here’s what you can learn from their biggest mistakes and errors in judgment.
Back to the topic, as Masigan said, the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines were short-sighted. The economic restrictions should've never been hard-coded into the Constitution! However, some people started treat the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, as if it's so holy. Never mind the warnings of Mrs. Aquino (and eventually Lee Kuan Yew, who died in 2015) rang true. Trying to solve present corruption woes with obsolete methods of scrunity, is a terrible idea. Can you defeat newer, more powerful computer viruses with an obsolete OS and an obsolete anti-virus? Why do you think anti-virus programs get updates every now and then? Why do you think we need to change our PC CPU when it starts to slow down? It's because past successes do not translate into present successes. People can get lazy with their success and fail to look back at what allowed them to succeed. Nokia refused to look back at what made them succeed. Instead, Nokia only focused on the success rather than learning from the past success, and improve it.
Like Nokia, the Philippines ended up relying too much on EDSA 86. Has EDSA become the most abused solution? That's why EDSA magic is practically well, outdated. It's become like an outdated anti-virus software. How many times must people have the cycle of just "Let's EDSA again!" However, I'm amazed that there's no attempt yet to launch another EDSA Revolution during the reign of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos Jr.! It's true former president Joseph Marcelo Ejercito aka Estrada resigned because of EDSA-2. The focus should not be EDSA again, EDSA again, and maybe EDSA 100? Nobody can always guarantee that EDSA will work. The next EDSA Revolution might end up like the Tiananmen Square. Tiananmen Square protests failed as they were dealing with China as an economic giant. Also, please don't act like EDSA was the first peaceful revolution. We should never forget Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi also led a peaceful protest against British occupancy!
As Masigan wrote, "Our Constitution must keep up with these changes if we are to be competitive" Again, take note that Masigan is a Duterte critic and an Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo supporter! EDSA was a wonderful thing. However, like any technological marvels of the past, EDSA couldn't always be relied on. The Philippine Constitution is meant to be updated to keep up with the times. Any good operating system is often updated. Any good company will keep operating systems updated and newer versions released. The Philippine Constitution is no different. It's not unique and it's not "one of a kind". Instead, it must continue to update and move beyond EDSA. It's not that we forget EDSA. We learn from EDSA, not lean on EDSA!
Comments
Post a Comment