Principles are for people who can afford it

The late sugar-baron Don Alfredo "Peding" Montelibano once told us, "Principles are for people who can afford it." What that could actually mean is people in the lower classes of society just want to make a decent living. They don’t really care much about abstractions such as politics and constitutional changes. As an example – a friend’s driver told him he couldn’t care less about impeachment or resignation because what was important is to earn a living so he could afford to feed, clothe, and educate his five children. That’s all the driver wanted. He sees the present political crisis as simply a fight among the rich and the powerful. That’s probably a common sentiment among our growing population where 40 percent live on a hand-to-mouth existence. That’s why fast tracking amendments to the constitution’s economic provisions is probably more urgent at this time in uplifting the lives of these people since their numbers are growing at an average rate of four babies per minute. If we can expand the economy fast enough and create a bigger middle class with a larger tax base, then the country can well afford to have these "honorable" congressmen go on an impeachment binge everyday if they choose to do so. The people just want to make a living. They cannot eat principles.

The present Charter’s economic provisions have many restrictions making ours a closed feudal economy. The world has turned around many times and the Philippines seems to be stuck near the bottom. Even after the ravages of war, countries like Vietnam and Cambodia are already moving ahead opening up their economies faster than we have. Look at China – the Great Wall literally isolated the Chinese economy for four decades under Mao Tse Tung. But when Deng Hsiao Ping opened up China to the world and effected drastic economic reforms more than 20 years ago, it has now become more capitalistic than the capitalists themselves. China’s economy has been rapidly growing at an annual rate of nine percent prompting the Yuan to be revalued.

In the late 80s, there was widespread American paranoia about Japan taking over their country because well-known institutions were being snapped up by Japanese companies. It came to the point that Japanese firms were undeservedly demonized in the Michael Crichton movie Rising Sun. Events, however, proved those fears to be unfounded because no one foresaw that the Japanese economy bubble would burst. Such is the nature of economies and the pitfalls that lurk unseen. Japan Inc. was at its height when it bought the iconic Rockefeller Center, Columbia Pictures, MCA/Universal, and even the famous Pebble Beach Golf Course in California. This buying binge did not hurt US patrimony or interests at all because when the Japanese economy went "kaput," they sold all these so-called patrimonial properties back to the Americans for a song. That is why this patrimonial gobbledygook about the Manila Hotel and the Amari deal on the reclaimed area is plain B.S.

Changing the system of government is an extremely sensitive issue which could divide this country further. Since it will go into a "great debate" perhaps for years on this issue, it may well be more practical to start with economic amendments first. You can be sure people with presidential ambitions like Mar Roxas, Ping Lacson, Frank Drilon, et al will go against a fast track Charter Change with everything they’ve got. And if Noli de Castro becomes president, he certainly won’t want to step down until he finishes his term. Some people think GMA may be part of the problem but she can actually be part of the solution because only she has the incentive to change the constitution for her own political survival.

In 1999, former President Joseph Estrada formed a Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reforms. Ronnie Concepcion, who happened to be one of the commissioners, was kind enough to lend me a copy of that report to the President. Breezing through it, I must say it was pretty good. Unfortunately, it was not well-received at that time. Perhaps, we should consider reviving that report now and use it as a basis for priority amendments to the constitution’s economic provisions.

Allowing foreign corporations to have 100 percent participation in mining is a good step in the right direction. But on the whole, our economic provisions have to be modified to open up the country to more investments if we are to be a player in a globalized economy. We have so many protectionist provisions that hinder the inflow of investments and development because of the limitations on foreign ownership. The Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reforms reported that "protectionism, an effect of US colonial policy, is a continuing reflection of the spirit of the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions." Regarding the restriction on land ownership for foreigners and foreign-owned firms, the commission recommended liberalization because the private lands available only take up one percent of our total land area. In the areas of advertising, telecommunications and education, where foreign ownership is limited to only 30 or 40 percent, the commission concluded "there did not appear to be any compelling policy reason to preserve constitutional restrictions on foreign equity participation." As a matter of fact, our constitution is the only one in the world that included the advertising industry in its scope.

The commission believed that Information and Communication Technology convergence should now allow foreign equity in the media industry. CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Bloomberg are seen every day on cable or satellite TV. Local media firms that are partly owned by foreigners will benefit from the transfer of investments and technologies. Among the many areas recommended for amendments, they also prioritized: citizenship, equity ratios for foreign investments, schools, professions, natural resources, franchises, and energy. Amendments in these areas will help this country become more competitive and consider more options. Instead of borrowing money, we can even adopt the debt-to-equity proposal. But how can foreigners get equity when they’re constitutionally limited from doing so?

What matters most is that we now take our economic destiny in our own hands. As Newsweek’s Robert J. Samuelson observed - Despite globalization coupled with economic and political setbacks, "the nation still is the decisive force in determining the economic conditions of its citizens." It is logical, therefore, our priority should be the economic changes in the constitution. At the end of the day, following Don Peding Montelibano’s wisdom, we must give the majority of the people economic power so they can afford principles. Deprived of that, they can very well ignore the rule of law and turn to "the law of the jungle" just to survive.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]