This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. V, No. 48, January 15-21, 2006
Charter Change: The Other
View
Are the proposed amendments
to the Constitution in the interest of the country as Malacañang says they are?
Bulatlat interviewed Bayan Muna (People First) Rep. Teddy Casiño, one of
the opponents of Charter change, for a glimpse of how those in the negative side
of the matter view the issue. Below are excerpts from the interview.
BY ALEXANDER MARTIN
REMOLLINO
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has been
pushing for Charter change even while she was continuing the term of ousted
President Joseph Estrada.
In 2005, the issue of Charter change became more
urgent to Macapagal-Arroyo as she faced intensifying calls for her ouster or
resignation from office on issues of alleged election fraud, corruption and
human rights violations and the imposition of policies described by
cause-oriented groups as “anti-national and anti-people.” Late last year,
Macapagal-Arroyo formed a Consultative Commission to draft amendments to the
1987 Constitution as a supposed means to stave off the crisis generated by calls
for her to vacate Malacañang.
The Consultative Commission – led by former
University of the Philippines (UP) president Dr. Jose Abueva – submitted its
proposed amendments to the Constitution on Dec. 16, 2005. Malacañang praised the
Consultative Commission for a job described as well done and called the draft
amendments a step toward “repairing” the political system.
The farthest-reaching amendments concern the
national economy and patrimony. There are proposed changes allowing the State to
enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with
corporations fully owned (no longer 40-percent owned) by foreigners; as well as
permitting corporations fully owned by foreigners to lease alienable lands of
the public domain, but permits only Filipino citizens to own these. Corporations
fully owned by foreigners would also be allowed to do business in advertising
and media. Citizenship restrictions on franchise and thus ownership of public
utilities are to be removed.
There would also be a shift in the form of
government from presidential to parliamentary. Macapagal-Arroyo, whom former
President Fidel V. Ramos had earlier called on to rule as a “transition
president” until 2007, will be allowed to stay in office until 2010. Elections
scheduled for 2007 are to be cancelled.
What do these have in store for the Philippines?
Are these amendments in the interest of the country as Malacañang says they are?
Bulatlat
interviewed Bayan Muna (People First) Rep. Teddy Casiño, one of the opponents of
Charter change, for a glimpse of how those in the negative side of the matter
view the issue. Below are excerpts from the interview:
How do you think the economy would be affected
by the proposed amendment allowing the State to enter into co-production, joint
venture, or production-sharing agreements with corporations fully owned by
foreigners?
Basically, this provision is aimed at opening up
sectors that have been previously reserved for locals and particularly the state
to exploit, namely energy resources, forest resources, mineral resources
(including oil and gas), water resources.
The initial impact is intensified extraction
activities on these sectors especially by foreign, monopoly corporations leading
to greater siphoning off of the national patrimony. Policy-wise, it will further
stunt industrialization because instead of being used to develop local industry,
our resources will most likely be exported to serve the needs of other
countries.
In fact, that is already being done at present,
much more when the Constitution formally recognizes the right of foreign
corporations to lease lands. What will most likely happen, and this is in the
draft amendments proposed by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments,
is that foreigners will be allowed to own residential and industrial lands only.
Agricultural and forest lands will still be reserved for Filipinos but at the
rate these lands are being converted to residential and industrial areas, the
distinctions become irrelevant.
Of course multinational advertising and media
corporations will most likely use this opportunity to gobble up local firms.
This means more profits going to foreigners rather than locals.
But more than this, this will allow an even
greater influx of Western, consumerist, often decadent cultural values in the
mass media. It will be cultural imperialism on turbo-boost.
Firstly, it fails to address the fundamental
issue of who wields power and how this power is used by the ruling elite to
benefit themselves, and their local and foreign bosses. It will not cure the
problem of bureaucrat capitalism and political patronage that are at the heart
of the rotten political system. Without a radical change in the political
culture and the entrenched power structures in society, a shift to a
parliamentary-unicameral system―and worse, a
parliamentary-unicameral-federal―will further strengthen and consolidate the
power of the traditional political dynasties, warlords, reactionary parties and
power brokers.
The immediate objective is to give GMA a new
lease on life or at least enough room to maneuver herself for a graceful exit
come 2007. That in itself makes the project reprehensible. But that is nothing.
The more strategic objective is to further strengthen and consolidate the
bankrupt political system and pass this off as a change in the system to make it
acceptable to the people, who are the system’s victims. The traditional ruling
elites want to have their cake and eat it too. Bulatlat © 2006 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.
Bulatlat
Is there any means for foreign-owned corporations to get around the
proposed amendment allowing corporations fully owned by foreigners to lease
alienable lands of the public domain, but permits only Filipino citizens to own
these, i.e. any possible legal manipulations like using Filipino
citizens/companies as dummies?
How could the economy be possibly affected by proposed provisions allowing
100 percent foreign ownership in advertising and mass media?
In your opinion, is the public going to be served well by the proposed
amendment removing citizenship restrictions on franchises and thus ownership of
public utilities?
No. Our experience with the privatization
of public utilities, like water, power and oil in the 1990s proved that what is
good for foreign investors is bad for the consumers. The same holds true for
many other countries that have opened up their utilities sectors to foreign
capital. Public utilities are natural monopolies that are vested with high
national interest. It is always good policy to reserve this for citizens.
Could you give the main reasons for the wide opposition to the change in
the structure of government from presidential to parliamentary?
To be more specific, a shift to a unicameral-parliamentary system abolishes or
greatly weakens the system of checks and balances between the executive and the
legislative and between the upper and lower houses of Congress. It also holds
the chief executive hostage to the whims and caprices of Parliament, since he
can be removed anytime through a vote of no-confidence. This opens the door for
more corruption, abuse and plunder of the national coffers.
In other words, the so-called “system change” is merely cosmetic. They’re
replacing a house of crooks with a parliament of crooks.
Do you agree with those who see the proposed no-election scenario as a
tactic to prevent the unseating of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo?