No to Cha Cha Because of EDSA?
Back when I was in elementary, we were told that EDSA 1986 was a good thing. I don't want to deny the well-documented human rights abuses of the first Marcos Administration. The repeated call to amend or reform the constitution has unfortunately been demonized as if it's always a bad thing. I guess that's a result of people with poor reading (and listening) comprehension for so long. If only people started to read in-between the details of Philippine history, if only people read through the book From Third World to First and not just quote the late Lee Kuan Yew about the Marcoses, they'll see that using EDSA to demonize charter change is really a bad move.
Startling facts during the Marcos Years that may have been ignored by anti-charter change proponents
What happened during EDSA was practically a revolutionary government. Above is a video of the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. I confess that I do tend to admire Ninoy, especially with his Los Angeles speech. My favorite line of his was practically, "We had a parliamentary system without a parliament." In short, there was no real parliamentary system. Both Ninoy and the late Salvador Laurel challenged the legitimacy of the first Marcos Administration, under the rule of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. The way Ninoy colorfully described the amendments is still very meaningful.
And so my friends, we started with an American-type constitution, we move to a British-type constitution. We had a parliamentary form of government without a parliament. Until 1978, we did not have a parliament. And yet, we were supposed to be a parliamentary form of government. And Mr. Marcos said, “I declared martial law to save democracy.” But by saving democracy, he killed it.
And so my friends, it was not until 1978 that the Batasan was convened. Now, what do we hear? Mr. Marcos once again, is up again to his new tricks. He said, “I lifted martial law but I think we should now elect a president by direct vote.” But there is not such thing. Under the new constitution now, the president is purely ceremonial. Tagabukas lang ng pinto, tagatanggap lamang ng credential ng ambassador. (Translation: The one who opens the door, the one who receives the credentials). Purely ceremonial elected by parliament, he is not elected by the people. The power of the government under a parliamentary system lies within the Prime Minister. And the Prime Minister must be elected by parliament, and this prime minister may be removed from office, if there is a vote of no confidence. That is the British type. So what did Mr. Marcos do in 1976? He amended the constitution and said, “I, Ferdinand Marcos, as Prime Minister/President, may dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve me.” And then he said, “Parliament may legislate, but if I think they’re not doing their job, I will also legislate.” So now we have two parliaments, Mr. Marcos and parliament. And it’s costing us 300 million to have that tuta (puppy) parliament, what’s the use? If Mr. Marcos is doing all the legislation, why keep these 200 guys? So what do they do? They change the name of the street of Divisoria. They change the name of a school. But when it comes to public decrees, like Public Order Code 1737, only Mr. Marcos signs it. And so we have a situation, where we have a man who can dissolve parliament, but parliament cannot dissolve him. And under the Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 constitution, Mr. Marcos is a president-for-life. And now, all of a sudden, two weeks ago, sabi niya, “I have lifted martial law but I now want to go to the Filipino people, and I want their mandate of 8 years. I will defend martial law. Anybody who oppose it can oppose me. I want to go to the people and get their mandate.” But how can you get the mandate? There’s no such thing in the constitution. Sagot ni Marcos, “Let us amend it.” So now, we are going to amend again the constitution. And so we ask Mr. Marcos, but what form of government will we have? “Ahh,” sabi niya, “I want a president with powers.” What happened to the parliamentary British? Forget it. Let us now go to France. Let us have a Fre model. And so my friends, it is like the odyssey of Jules Verne “80 Days Around the World”. We started with America. We went to England. Now we are going to France. Under the new proposal of Mr. Marcos, we will now have a president and a prime minister. But the prime minister will be appointed by the president. And this president now will be all powerful. It will not be the American type; it will be the French type. And I suppose two years from now, when he gets tired of that, he will go to the Russian type, whatever that is. And so he announced, “I will take anybody, including Aquino.” And so, I was not inclined to oblige him, but then he added, “Pero,” sabi niya, ‘”hindi pwede si Aquino, underage.” And so naturally I went to the book, I said how come I was underage? I thought I was already 48, because the rule before, to become President of the Philippines in 1935, all you had to do is to be 40 years old. And so I looked at the book, tama nga naman si Marcos, they’ve increased the age to fifty. Kapos na naman ako ng dalawa. Of course, Mr. Marcos said, “Pero kung talagang gusto ni Aquino (But if Aquino really wants); if he really wants to come home and to fight me, I will oblige him. I will also have the constitution amended for him.” So I told Mr. Marcos and his people, “Forget me, Mr. President. I am through with your politics. Hindi na po ako kako sasama sa inyong kalokohan. (I'm not involved in your foolishness). Nagtayo kayo ng isang lapian, ang pangalan KBL, Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan, mali po kako ‘yan, Kilusan ng mga Bingi at Loko-loko. (I decided to create my organization with the name KBL. Movement of the New Nation. Wrong. It means Movement of the deaf and the crazy). Hindi na ako kako sasama diyan. (I'm not joining it). Ako’y tapos na, I told them. I am through with politics, I said. I would just want to live in peace now. But I wrote Mr. Marcos and I told him, “While it’s true Mr. Marcos,” I said, “that after my 8 years in prison I have lost appetite for office, I am no longer seeking the presidency of this land, I’m not seeking any office in this country, but believe me,” I said, “When I tell you, that while I have vowed never to enter the political arena again, I shall dedicate the last drop of my blood to the restoration of freedom and the dismantlement of your martial law.”
In the knowledge of a real parliamentarian, the late LKY didn't only talk bad about the Marcoses but also revealed why Cesar Virata wasn't really a prime minister in action. After reading the book From Third World to First--I'm not surprised at what I read at all!
As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.
With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.
The big question is how can you have a parliamentary when the prime minister is no political leader? A first-class administrator but no leader is no leader at all. Virata met LKY in Singapore. It was that time when Marcos Sr. was under medical care. That's why some people doubt that Ninoy's death was arranged by Marcos Sr. or even his wife, Imelda Romualdez-Marcos. The way LKY described Virata is a far cry from a parliamentarian!
Before EDSA Revolution and some time after Ninoy was assassinated on August 21, 1983, we get another interesting detail. It's from the mouth of Marcos Sr. himself. Marcos Sr.'s own words finally point out the big evidence that his "parliamentary system" wasn't what it seemed to be. These words are taken straight from The Official Gazette dated January 17, 1984:
The adoption of certain aspects of a parliamentary system in the amended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidential character. Article VII on the Presidency starts with this provision: ‘the President shall be the Head of State and Chief Executive of the Republic of the Philippines.’ Its last section is an even more emphatic affirmation that it is a presidential system that obtains in our government. Thus: all powers vested in the President who, by virtue of his election by the entire electorate, has an indisputable claim to speak for the country as a whole. Moreover, it is he who is explicitly granted the greater power of control of such ministries. He continues to be the executive, the amplitude and scope of the functions entrusted to him in the formulation of policy and its execution leading to the apt observation by LASI that there is not one aspect of which that does not affect the lives of all.
In short, this further verified everything that Ninoy said. The 1973 Constitution of the Philippines had no real legitimacy, to begin with. Instead, it went from the British type to the French type. Ninoy's mention of 80 Days Around the World by Jules Vernes fits the description. Can anybody name a parliamentary system where the president is all-powerful or where the parliamentary can't dissolve the prime minister? I guess their' only "real empirical evidence" is this...
Instead of providing evidence, these people would rather throw insults. That would be what I call the MARITES Pyramid of Learning (read here). Whether they want to admit it or not, using insults is just plain stupid. Such as a page that calls itself "Lupang Hinarang, Duyan Ka Ng Magiting, Sa Manluliping, Di Ka Pasisiil" and other like-minded pages. I ask for evidence and they call me names like idiot, stupid, etc. They may succeed in making me mad or causing me to lose my cool. However, they ignore that they're making themselves even more wrong because:
It’s a Sign of Incompetence
If your goal is to present a counter suggestion, idea or even to debate, then lacing comments with insults nullifies any useful input you may have. You effectively ruin an opportunity to give thoughtful feedback.
Sorry to say it, but that’s just stupid.
Once someone includes an insult, subtly or blatantly, the focus shifts from the opinion to the insult and people naturally tune out any points you may have had.
Worse, insulters are not considered competent enough to provide any meaningful input, because using insults make them look foolish.
I sincerely believe some people become insulting because they’re unable to compose a convincing argument and so they end up embarrassing themselves by becoming belligerent.
It’s little wonder why such comments are usually posted online anonymously.
I’d also hazard a guess that nine out of ten times, people become insulting because of…
Frustration and Anger
We all have succumbed at times to frustration and anger when we passionately disagree with something, and that’s normal.
It’s best to allow anger and frustration to dissipate before saying anything.
I take a few extra moments to collect my thoughts, make notes, and when I’m ready, I do my best to provide my side in a respectful manner. That is, if I want my opinion to be considered.
Frankly, I like for my comments to be taken into consideration and not disregarded because I was thoughtlessly blowing off steam.
It's stupid they tell me to study history. I point out the information from Philippine history that the Marcos Years' "parliament" was nothing more than a sham. Come on, even Ninoy, who many of them idolize, already pointed out the absurdity of believing the first Marcos Administration was a parliamentary system! Still, they refuse to believe it and still cry out, "But the Marcos Years are parliamentary!" It's pretty much their comfort zone one way or another.
The 1987 Constitution is not meant to be set in stone either
What happened after EDSA was that there was pretty much a new charter. Though, I'm afraid that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was hurriedly written. There should've been an interim government and the late Maria Corazon S. Cojunagco-Aquino should've remained as an icon, not the leader of the people. The Filipinos looked up to Mrs. Aquino as an icon of democracy. Mrs. Aquino should've remained as the Head of State or the national symbol of unity for Filipinos. Mrs. Aquino didn't mastermind EDSA--she was the symbol of EDSA.
May I remind people that Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines doesn't make it some kind of "divine revelation". I wonder if the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) views it as such? Do Filipino bishops of the CBCP believe that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is divinely inspired? Instead, we read that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is open to amendments or even updates. From the way things look, the 1987 Constitution wasn't meant to be the forever constitution of the Philippines.
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
How does that sound like, as Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. would say, that there's really no need to amend it? How does that sound that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "inviolate and irreplaceable"? Sometimes, amending the law of the land may require writing an entirely new constitution. It's because the constitution itself is the very system of the land.
For a simple definition, a system is defined by the Collins Dictionary as:
A system is a way of working, organizing, or doing something which follows a fixed plan or set of rules. You can use system to refer to an organization or institution that is organized in this way.
In short, the Constitution dictates the way politicians and people do things. It's a fixed set of rules. If too many mistakes happen, you might want to check if the rules just (1) lack implementation, or (2) there is a lack of rules to drastically reduce mistakes.
I believe that a lot of people from the likes of Migrane International will protest. Let them get mad! Why is Singapore such a fine city? It's because you'll get fined if you break these simple guidelines. That's why Singaporeans are very well-disciplined in contrast to Filipinos. If Filipinos were subjected to such rules--there would soon be pressure to implement such rules. It's having the rules and implementing them. Do these social media gossipers know better than the great LKY? Do they think that Davide Jr. is better than Kishore Mabubani, who is the founder of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) at the National University of Singapore (NUS)? I guess they'll all go back to singing "Kahit Konting Awa" (Just a Little Pity) because they may still be angry at Singapore, for the execution of Flor Contemplacion.
A charter change creates a change in character (read here). Why do you think it was necessary to write a new constitution after the downfall of the first Marcos administration? It was because the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines was defective. The 1987 Constitution was created and amendments were allowed because it's not perfect. Somebody can ask if I'm smarter than the luminaries who framed it? I don't need to be smarter than the likes of Davide Jr. or the other framers such as the late Cecilia Muñoz-Palma. I can quote from other experts. It's wonderful that great experts talk in such a way that even nobodies like myself can understand it.
I just wonder if those who still insist that systems don't matter have a valid academic paper that they can take to the Deming Institute or any institute for that matter? Did they even realize that the late Jesse Robredo, a businessman, understood that it's not enough for an official to be good but to have a system that forces officials to be good? If the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III aka Noynoy created a better system--that system would remain even when he was no longer in power last 2016. Even when Noynoy joked about getting ran over by a train (which he was obviously throwing a hyperbole), he said, "Let's put an end to the old system." in Tagalog. Sadly, the system of the Philippines relies more on who is in power than the system that governs those in power. There's a big difference between a system that relies on who is in power vs. a system that governs those in power. That's really why I believe the 1987 Constitution should've been upgraded.
I can give a lot of comparisons from a car (which people think is a nonsense comparison), a school system, or even an operating system. Don't they understand simple figures of speech? For example, we've had Windows 32, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows 8, Windows 11, etc. If your PC can't handle the new Windows--why not buy a new CPU? They would say that the Philippine Constitution isn't an operating system. Again, simple comparison. I guess they'll even say it's not a school of thought in one moment then say it is another. In short, I wonder if such people can make up their minds. Pretty much, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, like the old Windows program, has been long overdue for a badly needed update.
Unfortunately, EDSA 1986 (and the 1987 Constitution) also show the problem of letting past successes blind you
John Gokongwei Institute for Leadership and Enterprise Development (JG-ILED) was spurred by the vision of Mr. John Gokongwei to (1) demonstrate the enterprise commitment to continued learning, organizational growth and career development; (2) enable leaders to develop strategies for competitiveness of the company; and (3) develop our employees and create a deep bench.
The Learning and Development programs under JG-ILED are crafted to help employees in different levels to advance their skills in effectively managing themselves (leading self), managing teams (leading teams) and being able to contribute significantly to the organization (leading the business/enterprise).
As JG Summit (JGS) transitions from being founder-led to a professionally-managed, Purpose, Values and Ambition- led empowered organization, we began with top-leadership development to further equip our leaders, and help them become better role models and change catalysts to inspire as well as influence the rest of the group. Moving forward, new, advanced and tailored-fit programs being carefully designed and procured by our Leadership and People Development team will be implemented across various levels in the organization.
That's what happened with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Rather than continue to learn, the likes of Davide Jr. are satisfied with the status quo. Why do you think that Article XVII even exists if the "holy Constitution" was supposed to be inviolate? The way Davide Jr. says, "I see absolutely no need to amend it!" pretty much sums up why businesses may fail. Why do you think not so many will have a Nokia phone in contrast to a Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei, Sony, Apple, etc.? It's because the other mobile phone developers chose to innovate. When a company is so focused on "Change is bad! Let's stay with our past success!" then you can expect it to fall down. Just think of companies that will still insist on using typewriters, old cash registers, and so on because they're so "used to it"?
Some boomer parents brag that they were honor students and get mad their children aren't in the honor ranks. Worse, they insult their own children because they fail to "live up to the reputation of the family". However, they were honor students during what year was it and what year is their child in. As two high school classmates of mine said, "What year was it and what year is it now?" It was 2001 vs. the 1960s. Now, it's already 2024. Being an honor student under an outdated education system is comparable to getting a high score in a very easy video game. However, not getting honors but learning under an updated and therefore, lessons will get harder, is more meaningful. Learning under more difficult lessons (while having newer learning methods) will be more meaningful. Also, what's the use with being an honor student in a school where the honesty track record is really that bad? An excellent grade can be bought but not a good grade. A good grade is worked for. An excellent grade may be paid for but a good grade springs out from hard work.
Why do some honor students succeed in life and others don't Gokongwei graduated valedictorian but he continued to learn new things. I remember a classmate of mine even said she had an auntie who graduated from Ateneo De Manila but she wouldn't work. Some people get drunk with the academic success and feel that they've got nothing to learn. That may explain why some people who didn't do well in school, back then, eventually did better in life. No, I'm not saying that their failure in school meant they would do better in life. Some people who used to hate school turn a new leaf and seek self-improvement. Meanwhile, others who did well in school forgot the lessons that allowed them to do well in school. A growth mindset is never satisfied with the monuments of stone. A growth mindset cares more about learning, even if it means giving up prestige. It's kind of like a classmate of mine shifted from Medtech to nursing after one semester, not minding he wouldn't enter the cum laude rank. He even humbled himself to become a teacher for a semester, before entering his actual job at a hospital, and moving to Canada as he intended. He even agreed that the school system only cares too much about grades than learning--another recipe for people to get drunk with their successes.
The success of overthrowing Marcos Sr. may have left people drunk with success. They should've thought of learning more. They could've said, "Okay, it's been a few years since we had a constitutional change. What areas do we need to change?" Instead, like some businesses that collapse, they chose to keep the status quo and were unwilling to embrace change. I'd say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines need not to be the cause of failure if it was updated or replaced when need be. It's like a typewriter need not be a cause of failure if it was replaced with something better. Some, still feel that the 1987 Constitution was "so sacred that it can't be touched". Yeah right, the end result is that provisions couldn't be fully implemented, more corruption took place (even if the Constitution doesn't directly command corruption), and badly needed economic reforms were never done.
In the end, the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines should have been like a long series of manuals. It was time to replace it many years ago. Instead, it ended up becoming an overworked and outdated system. Yes, an outdated system because it's already 2024. Badly needed updates were long-ignored and the consequences aren't flattering. Still, so many Filipinos fly to look for work abroad, projects that could've been carried over to a second term can't be done (such as the infrastructure projects late in Noynoy's term), and the Philippine education system is still very bad. Still, feel the success of EDSA should be a justification not to upgrade the Constitution?
Instead, let growth continuously take place instead of focusing too much on achievements
The one truth about constitutional reform is all about not fearing change. Change can be bad but change can be good. People tend to say charter change is evil because of the first Marcos administration. However, we need to change the bad for the good. We don't change the good for the bad. We want ot change the good with the better. Why do you think a new constitution was needed after EDSA? Just imagine if the Philippines was still ruled by the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines after Marcos Sr. was overthrown. It would probably still be worse than the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, just because the 1987 Constitution is better than the 1973 Constitution doesn't mean that the Philippines should just stay in the status quo.
I guess politicians are too happy winning with personality-based politics. What's more hypocritical is when people laugh at Senator Robinhood C. Padilla because he's an actor. Never mind that the Philippines has a long history of voting actors and athletes instead of people who know the law. I'm glad that Padilla took the risk by saying, "You should vote for better people." It's because between Padilla and someone even better, I'd pick the second. I believe most people don't want to do away with the fun of election seasons. If elections were determined by dancing, just imagine if President Ferdinand R. aka Bongbong Marcos Jr. had a dance revolution showdown against Atty. Maria Leonor S. Gerona-Robredo at the arcade, and he won. People would end up voting for Bongbong over Mrs. Robredo after the two had a friendly game of dance revolution. Does Bongbong beating Mrs. Robredo in a dance revolution game make him the best president? Absolutely not at all because that was a popularity contest. However, that's what the 1987 Constitution is actually encouraging. It's a personality-based politics system that will end up overriding any anti-corruption policies in the same law! That would be a bottleneck to the system.
Andrew James Masigan also writes about charter change. Take note that Masigan is a supporter of Mrs. Robredo and a critic of Atty. Rodrigo R. Duterte. This can also help explain how a parliamentary system produces better lawmakers:
FEDERAL-PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT
As mentioned earlier, the Duterte administration plans to a shift our form of government from a Unitary-Presidential form to a Federal-Parliamentary form. To better appreciate how a Federal-Parliamentary system works, it s best to look at it in contrast to a Federal-Presidential system.
A Federal-Presidential system offers no change to the current system where the President is elected through a national election and heads the executive branch. He has no sway on the judicial or legislative branches except through party-line influence. The United States operates under a Federal-Presidential framework.
A Federal-Parliamentary system , on the other hand, encourages people to vote according to political parties. Here, the citizens elect their Members of Parliament (their representatives), most often, based on the ideology of the party they belong to, not on their personalities. The party with the most number of elected representatives is declared “the parliament.” The parliament elects its Prime Minister (PM) from among themselves. The PM, in turn, selects the members of his Cabinet (his ministers) from among the member of the parliament.
There are multiple advantages to this. First, the system does away with expensive and divisive presidential elections. It puts an end to the vicious cycle of presidential candidates resorting to corruption and incurring political debts just to raise funds for their campaign.
Even the poor can run for office so long as they are capable. This is because elections are funded by the party. In a federal-parliamentary system, we do away with people who win on the back of guns goons and gold.
Moreover, since the members of parliament selects the Prime Minister, they can easily remove him through a vote of no-confidence should he fail to fulfill his mandate. We do away with the tedious process of impeachment. And since the ministers are selected from the Parliament, no one gets a free ticket to the Cabinet just because they are friends with the President or nominated by a political ally. The ministers all have mandates and are accountable not only to the PM but to their constituents.
The parliament is a unicameral legislative body. Thus, bills can be made into law faster and cheaper.
A parliamentary system is one where a “shadow Cabinet” exists. A shadow Cabinet is the corresponding, non-official Cabinet composed of members of the opposition. Each Cabinet minister has a shadow equivalent who is mandated to scrutinize every policy done by the official minister. The shadow minister may offer alternative policies which can be adopted if it is deemed superior.
In the end, the systems allows policies to be better thought out with appropriate safeguards to protect the interest of the people.
Among the seven wealthiest democracies (the G7 nations), only US and France follow a presidential system. the rest subscribe to a parliamentary system.
The intentions of charter change is good. Done right, it could be a game changer for the nation.
From the Philippine Star this 2024, I'm glad that Masigan continues to be for charter change. Sure, I don't agree with anyone 100%. I think Duterte's latest move in Mindanao should be deemed illegal and unethical. I can withdraw support away from Duterte but not the need for change. In fact, what if I told you I'm always willing to support any anti-Duterte who realizes that Duterte's victory was caused by the 1987 Constitution? What if I told you that I have high respect for Duterte's critic, the late Charles Edward P. Celdran? Now for something that Masigan wrote and why the 1987 Constitution needs to be upgraded:
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.
I decided to omit the second point, though I'd like to share this one as to why I continue to support Masigan despite his different political views:
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.
