Negative, positive outcomes seen in lifting foreign restrictions – Pulse Asia

MANILA, Philippines — Filipinos have a “nuanced” view on the possible impact of lifting the foreign ownership restrictions in the 1987 Constitution, according to Pulse Asia president Ronald Holmes.

Holmes issued the statement yesterday to provide additional context on commissioned survey results released by think tank Stratbase ADR Institute last month.

In a statement released on April 3, Stratbase ADR noted that most Filipinos believe that lifting the restrictions on foreign investments – which is among the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution – could result in “more high quality jobs, better services and lower prices of goods.”

The think tank, however, did not highlight the negative impacts seen by Filipinos if foreign ownership restrictions are lifted.

The commissioned survey, conducted from March 6 to 10, asked Filipinos to identify up to three things they think will be the impact of lifting foreign ownership restrictions.

Some 64 percent identified an increase in high quality jobs with high salaries and benefits, while 56 percent said services would be better.

Fifty-five percent said foreign capital would dominate local investors and business, 54 percent said the prices of goods and services would decrease and 43 percent said national security would be at risk.

“The results of the Stratbase-ADR Institute rider questions clearly indicate that the public has a much more nuanced view on issues relating to the lifting of the restrictive provisions of the 1987 Constitution,” Holmes said.

“The public does see both negative and positive outcomes of removing the restrictions against foreign investors in our Constitution,” he added.

The survey results, Holmes said, also show that the public is aware of the factors that deter the entry of foreign capital, including those that have nothing to do with the lifting of restrictive provisions in the Constitution.

It found that 56 percent of the respondents cited complicated rules and regulations like red tape as among the most significant factors that hinder foreign investments in the Philippines.

Some 55 percent cited restrictive rules on foreign ownership, while 46 percent cited corruption.

These were followed by inadequate transportation infrastructure, 40 percent; high cost of electricity, 37; inadequate telecommunications infrastructure, 32, and not enough incentive for investors, 21 percent.

Like in the other question, the total exceeded 100 percent because the respondents were allowed to choose up to three answers.

“The above results indicate that the public is keenly aware of the factors that deter the entry of foreign capital, including those that have nothing to do with the lifting of the restrictive provisions in the Constitution,” Holmes said.

“These results explain the unfavorable position of a significant majority of Filipinos on moves to remove the provisions in the 1987 Constitution that limit foreign involvement in specific economic and social sectors,” he added.

Aside from commissioned rider questions, Pulse Asia also conducted a non-commissioned poll of the Filipinos’ perspective on the proposed Charter change.

Only eight percent supported amending the Constitution now, while 88 percent opposed it.

A majority of the respondents also opposed lifting foreign ownership restrictions including in schools or universities, mass media and advertising, residential and industrial lands, exploitation of natural resources, communications companies and stocks in Philippine corporations.