Decades of liberalization and the entire package of globalization in the Philippines only brought austerity, low income and high prices to millions of Filipinos. “When in our economic history can they prove that the globalization policies like liberalization have lifted our poor kababayans from poverty?” asked Desposado.
Premises baseless, untrue
“The constitution can be changed ten times this year and it will not stomp out poverty as long as the same political and economic relations that exist today remain,” declared Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares. He said the very premise used by its proponents is “baseless and completely untrue.”
First, the Constitution is not the cause of poverty but corruption, wrong economic policies and lack of accountability for those who wield economic and political power, Colmenares said. Examples of wrong economic policies are those “that cater to the needs of foreign investors and the privileged Filipino tycoons who advocate anti-poor policies as job contractualization and labor flexibilization,” Gabriela Women Partylist Rep. Emmi de Jesus said.
Second, the economic premise used by the chacha proponents is not supported by any real research, said Colmenares. In fact, many of the economic miracles cited by its proponents are countries that have restrictive or protectionist provisions.
Thailand, for example, requires 51-percent Thai ownership of its public utilities such as electricity and energy; Australia requires 65-percent Australian ownership of its telecommunication; Brazil requires 49-percent Brazilian ownership of its lands. Aliens are reportedly totally prohibited from owning land in China. Nepal, Mongolia and Cambodia, which allow unrestricted foreign ownership, remain poor, said Colmenares.
In a public hearing held by the House of Representatives last October, Sonny Africa, executive director of independent thinktank Ibon Foundation, noted that the trend in other countries is toward protectionism and regulation, the opposite of what the proponents want to rewrite in the Philippine Constitution.
“Globally in the past ten years, the trend among countries is to put in restrictions and protection into their domestic economic policies; this is also true even among those who are pushing the Philippines to remove restrictions against foreign capital,” Africa told the members of House committee on charter change.
“What the constitution needs is enabling laws, not amendments. At least eight articles of its economic provisions still have no enabling law up to now,” said Philippine Constitutional Association’s Manolo Gorospe in a hearing in Congress on charter change. The economic provisions that have no enabling law, he later told Bulatlat.com, include Articles 2 to 4, 8, 14, 16, 20 and 22.
The nationalist economic provisions of the Philippine Constitution have not been implemented, said Africa. He added that it also explains why unemployment is at its worst today, and why the country’s agriculture and manufacturing have been persistently stunted.
The economic crisis in the Philippines is not a product of a restrictive constitution but of the same economic policies that the proponents of chacha wanted to intensify, critics said. “We need policies that will create more local jobs through national industrialization and genuine agrarian reform. We need economic policies that will protect Filipinos,” said Gabriela’s de Jesus.
“Charter change has been used time and again as an excuse to solve one social ill after another. What its advocates fail to recognize is that these social ills emanate from social inequity and the dominant traditional politics,” added De Jesus.
Chacha against Filipinos’ will
Filipinos have repeatedly spoken against charter amendments—by Pirma, by Sigaw ng Bayan Peoples Initiative, against former House Speaker Jose De Venecia’s attempt to convene the House of Representatives into a constituent assembly and, against the Fourth Mode Con Ass of former Speaker Propsero Nograles. Today’s “resurrection” of chacha is thus against the peoples’ will, said Colmenares.
No thanks to Congress’ rush to tackle the proposal for charter amendments, its leaders plan to rush as well the deliberations of the 2013 national budget, which they now plan to finish beginning of September. As the KMU warned, the “Congress and Senate will most likely railroad moves to amend the Constitution in the coming months, as legislators will be busy campaigning for the 2013 elections by January.”
“Instead of prioritizing measures that will uplift the situation of workers and the poor, they will try to remove remaining hindrances to 100 per cent foreign ownership of the country,” Labog said, as he urged the public to be vigilant and ready to protest against moves to amend the 1987 Constitution.
Despite assurances from Congress leaders and Aquino himself that they would restrict themselves to tweaking the economic provisions of the charter, patriotic and progressive groups warned that there remains the possibility it will be used to extend the terms of incumbent government officials.
“An unpopular president like Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had tried to change the Constitution with the objective of extending her term. It is not far-fetched for Aquino, who is drunk with the belief that he is highly popular, to try to extend his term via Cha-cha,” Labog said.
The danger in even considering charter amendments is magnified by the Congress’ proposed method of constituent assembly, said Colmenares. Once Congress is allowed easy access to constitutional amendments, and a precedent is set, Colmenares warned that “it is a foregone conclusion that it would subsequently amend other provisions of the Constitution, including elimination of term limits for politicians.” 
Pingback: Teach-In on the TPP and the U.S. Military “Pivot” to the Asia Pacific ← Flush the TPP!
Pingback: Philippines news: Progressive groups protest automated election fraud | Pinas news library
Pingback: Progressive groups protest automated election fraud « Bulatlat
alam nyo po ba na kunti lng na bansa ang mayroong 60-40% provision? alam nyo po ba na ang mga bansang meron nito lahat ay mahirap na bansa? at alam nyo po ba na ung mga mayaman dito sa pinas lng ang nakikinabang sa provision na yan? alam nyo po ba na sa mga bansa na ngwork ung mga OFW natin ay meron 100% at lahat ay maunlad na bansa?.mg research po kayo bago kayo mgsatsat dyan..nid natin abolished tong provision na to ! more work un po ang importante!
Hawaii has regretted letting foreigners own their land. You cannot eat money. Now they have more homeless natives than ever. The ‘progress’ is an illusion. When the Japanese had the tsunami, all the millions of dollars could not help them. The foreign investors jacked up the price of water to take advantage of their plight and the US pegged the dollar to the yen in an unfavorable way.
Those against foreign ownership of land and business in the Philippines are the 1% rich filipino’s who want to control the economy and get richer at the expense of the poor filipino’s who have been held down by this same 1%. With foreign ownership and guarantees against corruption, filipino’s will see a rise in their standard of living through wages and home ownership which is not possible today due to the foot that is on the neck of the average filipino by the 1% rich. In all instances of foreign development of other asian countries, the foreign investors come into the country and make life better for all involved. Eventually, the foreign businesses are bought out by those same countries citizens because now they can afford to do so as the infrastructure of roads, electricity, schools are all much better maintained with the tax money that are charged to these foreign investor businesses. The rate of pay rises and brings more economic stimulus because the people can afford to buy more. If you demand the government not to allow foreign investment you are only hurting yourself and your childrens future.
Pingback: Filipinos warned against Aquino government's rush to amend 1987 Constitution « PHBuzz
“……One hundred per cent foreign ownership of lands and public utilities will further make us squatters in our own country”
I’d like to know what that means/implies. I mean, what is the difference with or without 100% foreign ownership?
“abandons our national patrimony and resources for future development and leaves these to the hands of profit-seekers, allowing our remaining natural wealth to be plundered at their will.”
does it make a difference if the “plunderer” is foreign or local?
hahay maling information na naman..
Pingback: Philippines news: Filipinos warned against Aquino government’s rush to amend 1987 Constitution | Pinas news library
kumikilos na namam ang dating mga tuta ni marcos para ibenta ang karapatan ng mga pilipino sa mga dayuhang tuso.
Balitang bilyong piso ang pondo ng grupong ito para mabago ang constitution.
Sa ngayon ay idineklara na ng korte suprema na unconstitutional ang pagcontrol at pagmamayari ng mga dahuyang ito sa mga kumpanyang hawak nito.
Mabuti na lang at hindi nabibili ang ating pres pnoy.
Ang mga mambabatas kaya masasabi nilang wala sillng perang tinatanggap mula kay mvp?
andyan na naman kayo.. mga filipino talaga.. use ur utak naman po.. bakit e warned nyo kami eh good news nga eh f ever ma abolished tong 60/40 provision na to!.. Nid natin magandang trabaho dito sa pinas! kung inaabala nyo ay ung land natin..maraming paraan yan. uso na nga apartment ngaun at condo eh.. gusto nyo ba squatter habang buhay? oh sa apartment pero maganda naman work? Ang utak nyo talaga kulang sa anaylsis .simpleng math lng yan eh.. ano ba importante ngaun? isip po.. singapore nga ang liit lng ng bansa nla pero pupunta pa rn tau dun para mgwork.! at may matirahan parin dun!.
Before the Philippines trumpets itself as a real Tiger Economy of Asia, the Aquino Administration should do this first through a constitutional amendment:
Abolish the 60/40 equity restrictions from the 1987 constitution against foreign ind
ividuals or corporations who wishes to set-up their businesses anywhere in our country and allow them to invest 100% from their own capital and own it what they invest in order to lure more foreign investors to invest and stay in our country that would provide jobs to millions of unemployed Filipinos at home as much as possible without constitutional barriers.
Foreign equity ownership by economic sector should be like this:
Mining – 100%.
Oil and gas – 100%.
Agriculture – 100%.
Forestry – 100%.
Light manufacturing – 100%.
Food products manufacturing – 100%.
Pharmaceutical manufacturing – 100%.
Publishing – 100%.
Fixed-line infrastructure – 100%.
Fixed-line telephony services – 100%.
Wireless/mobile infrastructure – 100%.
Wireless/mobile telephony services – 100%.
Power distribution – 100%.
Power generation (biomass) – 100%.
Power generation (coal) – 100%.
Power generation (hydro) – 100%.
Power generation (nuclear) – 100%.
Power generation (solar) – 100%.
Power generation (wind) – 100%.
Power transmission – 100%.
Banking – 100%.
Insurance – 100%.
Airport operation – 100%.
Domestic air – 100%.
International air – 100%.
Port operation – 100%.
Domestic shipping – 100%.
International shipping – 100%.
Advertising – 100%.
Magazine – 100%.
Newspaper – 100%.
Radio broadcasting – 100%.
Television broadcasting – 100%.
Construction – 100%.
Retail distribution services – 100%.
Tourism – 100%.
Education – 100%.
Health care – 100%.
Waste management – 100%.
To those who will say that if we will allow foreigners to own 100% of a businesses they invested or owning a pieces of land, we will become a foreigners in our own land is just a fear mongering tactics by coward and freeloading leftists and ultra nationalists elements of our country.
By using their appeal to fear fallacy, Hong Kong and Singapore should have been controlled economically and politically by the United States and the European Union but instead, their respective economies caught up the US or EU GDP per capita within a generation and therefore they became a developed economy status.
Easing the laws on foreign ownership will increase foreign investment and improve the life of every Filipino. Keep it closed and you will sign your own national death warrant as foreign investment goes elsewhere.,