Constitutional reform or a new law on foreign investments?

It could have been another Edsa with three personalities who made it possible present in the capacity-filled Carlos P. Romulo Auditorium in RCBC Plaza last Thursday. But nothing of the sort happened. Former President Fidel V. Ramos and now Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile have become tamed by the very politics they had decried when they challenged President Ferdinand Marcos from their lair in Camps Crame and Aguinaldo. Also there was former Security Adviser Jose T. Almonte who is known as a behind the scenes operator.

They were there to tackle a safer theme: Competition and a Level Playing Field as it appeared in the 11th FVR-RPDEV lecture. But moderator Tony Abad did not miss the significance of Enrile and Ramos being together on the same stage. It was a rare occasion. It may have been a smaller stage but the issues being tackled remains the same — the heart of what Edsa was all about. A better life for Filipinos.

For those who look behind symbols, Edsa was not so much against Marcos as it was against a system of government that did not address the concerns of the people. That theme should have been emphasized again and again through the years after Edsa. Then we would have had a better chance for reform. But as it happened the emphasis was placed on personalities, Cory vs. Marcos, etc. and we have since lost our way. I am not surprised that we are repeating history with a Noynoy vs. GMA bout as if this was what nation building is all about. It isn’t. These are events on the surface and cannot take the place of the more important task of governance and I might dare to say, also of citizenship.

If government has failed in the Philippines, citizens share part of the blame for preferring personality cult struggles in their search for effective leadership. Under the present system, good leaders are discouraged from coming forward.

* * *

The RPDEV should be commended for inviting Senator Juan Ponce Enrile to talk about the impending bill to change the 40% limitation of foreign investor ownership in Philippine companies. If this bill is passed, we can expect economic changes that address the major concern of Filipinos — something prosaic but necessary — the creation of jobs. I have my own view about the bill but it is a good start.

It will be a signal that the 1987 Constitution is not untouchable and refute the argument that it should not be amended.

However Enrile emphasized in the forum that the move to loosen up the investment climate of the country would not be done through constitutional reform but through ordinary legislation. Fine, whatever it takes, just do it. He must have said it so he would not incur the ire of the oligarchs and conservatives who hold the power of the state and would not want to yield an inch to keep the status quo.

With a burgeoning population, we need investments to create jobs here. So we must have laws that make investments in the country attractive. Why should any investor foreign or local want to put his money in a country that does not only not want it, it puts the limitation in its Constitution. Maybe we should trace how this provision came to be part of the 1987 Constitution to give us a clue on just how it got there and what vested interests pushed for it.

* * *

I had asked only one question during the forum. When will it be done? What is the time frame for such a bill to become law? Enrile replied “within the year.” That is something to cheer about. Now we have a timetable and it is in the hands of our legislators. Presuming that the legislative acts independently of the Palace we know whom to ask why we do not have the investments that would create more jobs for Filipinos in their own country. We also will know whom to blame on why the Philippines lags behind in the race for investments in the region.

When PFVR introduced me as an advocate of Charter change, the Senate President felt constrained to emphasize that changing the framework for investments is being made through normal legislation. It will not have anything to do with constitutional reform. Fine. However it is done, just get it done. (By the way the Church should mobilize support for the bill if it is to be consistent with its stand that economic reforms, not birth control is the key to alleviating poverty.)

* * *

Like Enrile, many other advocates have also come down in their advocacy and would accept taking small steps instead of a wholesale reform of the Constitution. They would support the Enrile-Belmonte (Speaker Feliciano Belmonte has also signified his cooperation in the Lower House) bill because it will mean we can at least move forward.

Why should we expect foreign investments to come to a country that does not want them especially when other countries in the region are in a race on how to get more investments. The bill would address a problem that is a direct reason why investors prefer other countries in the region. In Enrile’s estimate the bill would “release the rigidity” of the 40 percent boundary in order to create more jobs for Filipinos in the country.

“…under present laws, if they (foreign investors) want to create hotels, they need to put up a dummy because they cannot own land,” he explains. The real victims of this restriction, I am afraid are the masses who trudge the streets looking for scarce jobs they cannot find. When they do find jobs these are not up to the level of what they studied for. Filipinos have resorted to working in other countries but that option is now closing in and jobs overseas may no longer be as easily available with host countries restricting if not totally rejecting foreign labor.

* * *

We must support the Enrile-Belmonte bill. At the forum, the audience applauded when Enrile said his concern in pushing for the bill is for the sake of the people living in grinding poverty. Well said. Indeed, what else is government for if it cannot provide such a basic need as jobs. For this we need big ticket industries with huge investments that cannot be met by local oligarchs. –Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star)