Why Charter change is OK by me

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.

Ways to Cha-cha

There are three ways to amend the constitution – through a constituent assembly (con-ass), a constitutional convention (con-con) or a people’s initiative.

In a constituent assembly, it is our congressmen and senators who draft and vote on constitutional changes. A three-fourths vote will get the amendments passed. The proposed amendments are subject to a referendum whereby a majority vote is needed.

The contentious issue surrounding a con-ass is that only a handful of legislators are lawyers, let alone constitutional experts. Many doubt whether they have the competencies to draft the basic law of the land.

The second route is through a people’s initiative. A proposal for constitutional amendment needs to be signed by 12 percent of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3 percent of the registered voters.

Once the required number of signatories is reached and after the petition is published twice in newspapers, a general referendum is required to approve the proposal. A majority vote is needed for enactment.

The third route is through a constitutional convention (con-con). The con-con is regarded by experts as the superior route.

In a constitutional convention, the citizenry elects their own constitutional delegates according to their constituencies (localities). Con-con delegates are responsible for drafting the constitutional amendments for which members of Congress have no direct hand in deliberations.

Calling for a con-con requires a two-thirds vote of congress. The proposed amendments are then submitted to the electorate for ratification through a referendum. A majority vote is needed for approval.

A constitutional convention is the more democratic and participative route – but it is also a longer and more expensive process. The DBM estimates that it will cost well over P7 billion to do.

While I prefer a con-con, I would not mind other means of constitutional change for as long as it gets the job done. Again, I support the move to amend our basic economic laws and shift to a parliamentary system. I do not support term extensions.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @aj_masigan