I may be no lawyer or constitutionalist but it's time to use common sense. I'm afraid common sense is hardly taught or even encouraged in schools. Right now, I want to do this provocative entry to ask, "Fact or gossip: Is the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines the best in the world?" Yes, you read that right. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that last 2018 and I'm still laughing at it. I've decided to write this common-sense post to actually contest the idea that, "The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the best in the world."
I'm laughing at some things Davide Jr. had said such as, "It' is the only institution in the world where the public office is a public trust." However, this man is terribly wrong because, around the world, we see the doctrine where public office is a public trust. Thomas Jefferson also said that public office is public trust--way before Davide Jr. was born into the world! I really laughed at their claim of Davide because, for one, the Philippine constitution is somewhat modeled from the American constitution with a few modifications. I'm laughing also because Davide Jr. is already acting as if the American constitution never had Jefferson's quote in mind. Did Davide Jr. think he wrote the basic obligations of public service?
We need to understand how systems work
I often read on Facebook stuff like, "It's not the constitution that's the problem. It's the politicians that have the problem." I would try to quote people like the late great Jesse M. Robredo. I can't be sure if Robredo himself is also fighting for the same reforms as his fellow mates. However, he said, "It's not enough for an official to be good. There has to be a system that forces them to be good." We have the late Charles Edward P. Celdran aka Carlos Celdran. Celdran was a Duterte critic but he was right about the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines in need of revision. Yet, Davide Jr. has stubbornly said, "There's absolutely no need to revise it." I really felt like laughing.
Once again, the argument goes, "It's not the system! It's the politicians!" or "Change the system by changing the politicians!" The argument itself is very self-contradictory. I could ask, "Why is it that the politicians voted by the people are always repeatedly bad? It's been more than 10 years and I see no change." Then the blame goes to the voters. Why do you think voters are foolish? Once again, it all goes to the system. The system that encourages popularity will encourage voters to vote based on popularity. It doesn't matter if the popular person is very stupid--a popularity-based system will encourage voting for stupid people. This is where things are. Why do you think stupid people keep getting into power? If you say the system has nothing to do with it then you're dreaming.
I would also like to add the question, "If the Philippines has the best constitution then why don't we have the best quality politicians?" They would still say, "It's the voters again!" However, systems will influence the behavior of both the politicians and the people. If the system would generate more jobs, better education, and the like then we can expect better politicians. Unfortunately, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines has failed to fix the damages done by the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines big time.
The Philippines' economic overall performance vs. other nations
I fire the question, "If the 1987 Constitution is the best in the world, why is the Philippines backward economically?" The answers can go like as:
- "Well, blame it all on Marcos! If we get the Marcos wealth back, we'll be rich again."
- "Blame it on the corrupt officials, not the Filipino First Policy!"
I guess decades of teaching the late Carlos P. Garcia's "Filipino First Policy" as good for the Philippines has caused that kind of reading. Even worse, some of these people will make out reasonings like, "First world countries developed through protectionism. It was only after they stabilized they opened their businesses to foreigners." However, reading the late Lee Kuan Yew's book From Third World to First had said otherwise. Then they're going to say that it's because Singapore's corruption index is much lower than the Philippines. Did they even realize corruption in China and Vietnam isn't really that low either? Yet, China became a powerhouse under the late Deng Xiaoping. Yet, Vietnam became a powerhouse because of the late Nguyen Duy Cong aka Do Muoi.
The issue has always been that the Philippines has had the long 60-40 rule for many industries. I always read comments like, "If you let foreigners invest here, only they will get rich!" Some even suggest that letting foreign companies invest in stuff like public utilities is automatically a threat to security. Some even suggest that the government should be the one to monopolize and provide such public services. The same fools can't even understand supply chain analysis (which includes basic cost accounting) and the basic law of supply and demand. I try to explain to them but as said, they're most likely just to plug their ears and mock me. It really gets irritating and their best source can be as "good" as, "Trust me, bro." What kind of a source is that?
I tried to explain to them the abolition of 60/40 is all about allowing foreign investors to invest without a Filipino partner. I even went as far as to mention that 60-40 is overpriced rent. An illustration is that how would you like to rent a space but you had to give 60% of the ownership of that branch to the lessor? The lessor even gets 60% of the net profit. The net profit is all profits less all expenses. All expenses deducted from the profits include rent. Nobody would want to rent if the rate is overpriced. Yet, it seems these people are only interested in making a quick buck rather than having to simply receive the right amount of rent per month. I told them that the 60-40 rule is all about equity. I can even go and talk about how they're still obliged to pay rentals, taxes, suppliers, creditors, salaries, and every necessary bill. Still, the same people will keep screaming something like, "Foreigners will invade us and take over our government! Trust me bro!"
The big difference between the claims of the two policymakers
There was a time I asked, "Who would you trust between the late John Gokongwei Jr. or Davide Jr.?" The answer is always said, "Those are two different topics. One is about business and the other is about politics. If it's lawmaking, of course, Davide Jr." Then I start to refer them over to the founding dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, Kishore Mahbubani, and they'll say something like, "What? Another foreigner? Why can't you quote from a Filipino?"
Some fool on Facebook (and his spelling is pretty bad) even said something like, "The Philippines isn't Singapore, isn't China, isn't Vietnam." I've been tagging him a few times already to defeat his disinformation. However, the guy still insists on stuff like "The Philippines isn't Singapore! It'll never work here!" or "Selling the Philippines to foreigners huh?" Ironic that the guy has a picture of him using an iPhone from a few years ago. Don't tell me his iPhone was made in the Philippines. This fool has been mistaken. He's also the same fool who still insists that it's only the politicians, not the system, that's the problem. That argument is once again very self-contradictory. I guess the guy uses the Trust Me Bro fallacy or the fallacy of appealing to confidence.
I'm amazed that
Davide Jr. warned people that the Philippines could become a colony of foreign investors. Davide Jr. used to be a
former UN diplomat. Well, guess what? Mahbubani was also a former UN diplomat. Both old men went to the UN as diplomats. Davide Jr.'s statements would already reflect what Mahbubani said. In the documentary
The Singapore economic model - VPRO documentary - 2009, I could remember Mahbubani said something that directly contradicts Davide Jr. Mahbubani called the idea of rejecting FDIs and believing they will rape the resources of the country as a
third-world mentality. Instead, Mahbubani said that Singapore will be different. The results came in showing how Singapore went from third-world status to first-world status. Lee's book was more than just a book. It was a memoir of Singapore's success evidenced by pictures of Singapore before and after.
All Davide Jr. could say is this. Mahbubani did more than say and showed results. Singapore's model was then followed by bigger countries such as China and Vietnam. Singapore isn't doing better because it's "way too small" as some naysayers emphasize the fact. Instead, Singapore could've remained poor if it didn't open up to FDIs. Lee defied the thought patterns of the economists of his day. Lee hired the late Albert Winsemius to help in developing Singapore. Mahbubani had proven Davide Jr. wrong all before a debate could even begin.
At this point, are you still convinced that the 1987 Constitution is the best in the world?