It can be easy for some Filipino social media influencers to rejoice that Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan has taken over Senator Robin Padilla. I confess I never voted for Padilla because I don't like voting for celebrities. However, Padilla has been more active in reforming the constitution than most lawyers. It's easy to talk about Padilla's bad-boy image in the 1990s. However, Padilla was right in some areas where lawmakers could be wrong.
Right now, I want to present this post, not to derail Pangilinan, but to give some constructive criticism, as a taxpayer. Just because I'm a nobody doesn't mean that I should just shut up and never talk. Unfortunately, is it me or do many Filipino youngsters, yesterday and today, have been taking the national heroes for granted? Talk about voting for the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino III, without thinking that his father, Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr., actually risked his neck to expose certain anomalies of the first Marcos Administration. In fact, it was through Ninoy's speeches (which are often said to just talk and talk) that revealed that the first Marcos Administration was never under a parliamentary system. Jose Rizal can be made fun of, saying that he should've just moved to another country, then written those novels. However, think that if Rizal didn't risk his neck, there would've been no great awakening of the Filipino Indios, who were frequently treated as second-class citizens in their own country.
I could say it was disappointing that Kiko doesn't seem to care about getting updated. Since when did the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines become an "inviolate document"? What happened then to Article XVII of this "sacred document"? Sadly, that was also the mistake of Raul Roco, another person whom the anti-reforms keep quoting. Of course, never forget Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. is another of their favorite sources. Every time I talk about the need to amend the constitution, quotes by Davide or the Monsods, Roco, etc. are thrown in my face. Raissa Espinosa-Robles is just one out of many who do that. I run across them on Facebook all the time. If not, there's also the idiocy whenever Filipino Catholics quote whatever nonsense comes out of the mouth of CBCP priests (read here). That's why I call the CBCP to be promoting the Padre Damaso way of thinking.
What Kiko needs to do is to avoid taking economic advice from the IBON Foundation. I'm amazed how the IBON Foundation is often consulted for economic advice. Come on, aren't there other economic think tanks than IBON? Whether Kiko wants to admit it or not, these are the problems in the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, as written by economist Andrew James Masigan in the Philippine Star:
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.
It would be important to also highlight agriculture. Masigan's observations have revealed that our agriculture is left behind, thanks a lot to our excessive restrictions on FDI. If Kiko is serious about funding agriculture, he should seriously think about how the neighboring ASEAN countries (who are more FDI-friendly) are actually doing better agriculturally. Ironically, Communist Vietnam is doing better in agriculture than the Philippines (read here). Vietnam doesn't have the ridiculous 60-40 provisions within its constitution. Instead, Vietnam only passes economic restrictions through legislation, which makes it easier to relax or restrict certain economic provisions. Instead, the Philippines treated the Filipino First Policy like it was "a sacred divine revelation". If Kiko wants agriculture to improve, he should really not just study how other ASEAN countries are doing their agriculture, but also implement it. Article XII should really simply focus on balancing competition while removing equity ownership. If better, maybe it's time to remove Article XII entirely.
Kiko needs to see that the OFW problem is a real problem. Sure, OFWs may be pumping in money for the Philippines. However, at what cost? Talks of separation aren't drama. Sadly, the Philippines has a destructive obsession with OFW remittances (read here). Viewing balikbayan boxes as "spoils of war" is just stupid. If you get the job, you must do the job, and your boss rules over you. To say that one has conquered the country by getting jobs from the locals is stupid. If someone is employed in the Philippines--that person must follow the rules in the Philippines! OFW means Overseas Filipino Workers not Overseas Filipino Warriors. The idea of FDIs and OFWs in a game of conquest is pretty much childish and economically illiterate (read here)! If the ridiculous 60-40 equity ownership were gone, it would be tantamount as to reducing unjustly high rental fees. If you give rentals at the right price, there will be more tenants that will rent in that place. In exchange, doing so will create sustainable profit. I don't need a PhD in business administration to understand that! In fact, sometimes I wonder if I wasted money in my MBA days? I didn't even learn to invest in stocks even in graduate school!
Right now, people who want reforms need to really make their voice heard to their politicians, one way or another. Just because the Spanish Empire's colonial days are over, that the fight against reforms is over. Because it's Buwan ng Wika, I might as well give this statement by Jose Rizal, "Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?". Sometimes, we may become the tyrants of tomorrow that Rizal warned about. Sure, the Philippines may be a democracy. However, George Orwell also warned that democracies can become tyrannies. In the case of the Philippines, the country might be more accurately described as the dictatorship of the majority or dictatorship of the plurality under the presidential system. Hopefully, Kiko will realize that the parliamentary system could've given him and Atty. Maria Leonor Gerona-Robredo, a voice, if ever the Liberal Party had enough votes. Sadly, the Liberal Party had to accept the verdict that President Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos won instead. I'm not too impressed with Bongbong either, as the guy still insists that PHP 20.00 per rice is attainable. Please, times have change,d and there are more people today than yesterday. The costs of the stuff used to make rice couldn't be covered.
Pretty much, people need to get their voices heard. Yesterday, the statement was, "If you want to change the world, pick up your pen and write." I couldn't determine the source of the quote. This is one quote many take for granted. I've been told that I'm a good writer, put it in a good way. But what good way? Bootlicking? Writing to praise the errors? Instead, one can write to expose the wrongs and seek to make them right, without raising arms or leading a bloody revolution.
Comments
Post a Comment