Wrong Assumption: Those Who Wish to Reform the 1987 Constitution are Automatically Marcos Loyalists and Diehard Duterte Supporters
1: an inference (see inference sense 1) that does not follow from the premises (see premise entry 1 sense 1)specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative (see affirmative entry 1 sense 3) proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent (see consequent entry 1 sense 1)2: a statement (such as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously saidWe were talking about the new restaurant when she threw in some non sequitur about her dog.
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.
Note that Masigan already supported the charter change, even if he was a Duterte critic! Proof that Masigan was a Duterte critic? I'll admit I started out with the DDS but again, like any diehard supporter, it's political idolatry and not political restoration. Masigan had also written a critique against Duterte's priorities. It's almost like he was a member of the Liberal Party opposition in what's only an imagined Philippine parliament. For example, here's an excerpt that proves Masigan is a Duterte critic:
The old adage, “put your money where your mouth is,” is as true today as it was when it was first written in 1930. One can make promises and profess support for all sorts of causes until they are blue in the face. None of it matters until they put money behind their words. The areas and causes where one spends their money are the definitive reflection of their true priorities.
President Duterte is a difficult character to figure out. Not only is he inclined to utter words impulsively to pander to the crowd, we have also learned that he has a penchant for denying things he said before (even if they were recorded). When trapped by his own utterances, it is not beyond him to claim that they were all a joke.
During the election campaign and up to his first year in office, President Duterte made grand populist promises to hypnotize the nation into a euphoric state of optimism. He promised a golden age of infrastructure where spending on roads, bridges, and ports would amount to no less than 7% of GDP. He promised to elevate our quality of life by increasing spending on mass housing and social development projects, including education. He promised to end corruption, end illegal drugs, end social injustice, end political dynasties, and to enforce judicial reforms.
By his own admission, he failed to control corruption and failed to end the drug trade. Two keystone promises broken, right there. Ironically, corruption is worse today than it had been in decades, while the war on drugs proved to be destructive and damaging rather than restorative.
He also failed to end social injustice and political dynasties. Social injustice (and inequality) is at its worst since the Marcos years and political dynasties are more entrenched than ever. That makes four keystone promises broken.
ECONOMIC CHARTER CHANGE
Economic charter change is long overdue.The restrictive provisions of the constitution, especially those that relate to foreign direct investments (FDI), has held back the country’s development for more than 30 years.From the 1980s up to the close of the century, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand leapfrogged economically on the back of a deluge FDIs.During that period, the Philippines share of regional FDIs was a paltry 3% in good years and 2% on normal years. The flawed economic laws of the constitution are largely to blame for this.Imbedded in the 1987 constitutions is a list of industries in which foreigners are precluded from participation. These industries include agriculture, public utilities, education, and media, among others. The absence of foreign investors in these sectors has starved us of capital, technology transfer, and competition to push local companies to be more efficient. This is the largely reason why we have the slowest Internet service today, the most expensive power rates in Asia, and why we still have not attained self sufficiency in food production.The protectionist flavor of the 1987 constitution clearly favored the interest of select Filipino families who are/were involved the media and broadcasting, power generation and telecommunications.The Constitution further limits foreigners from owning more than 40% equity share in corporations. This has lead investors to either invest their money elsewhere or use several levels of dummies to evade the law. The latter breeds a domino effect of illegal acts.The fact that foreigners are barred from owning land has proven to be a great disincentive for those building manufacturing plants, factories, and buildings with a useful life of more than 30 years. Land is used as equity for business financing and to take this away from the business model is enough reason for investors to take their business elsewhere.Even Vietnam has beaten us to a pulp in the FDI race over the last 10 years.In 2017, Philippine FDIs are seen to top $8 billion while Vietnam is poised to take-in $28 billion. The difference between our levels of FDIs represents our opportunity loss. Its high time something be done to even the score.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 members 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.
Masigan admits that it's Duterte's plan, while highlighting the latter's faults. It's a sad thing but I've seen Duterte critics and Marcos critics on Facebook, choose to attack a platform because it's Duterte or Marcos, then blindly worship a candidate. I'm amazed that the late Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" C. Aquino became an object of adoration after his death. I wouldn't be surprised if petitions to make Noynoy a saint would show up at Change.org. Noynoy was cremated, presumably due to safety reasons. Noynoy died during the pandemic. Noynoy's legacy (never mind that it also had its flaws) may have had some GDP but let's not forget the failed responses. As systems shape behavior, a lot of failures during Noynoy's regime and Duterte's regime should be blamed more on the system than the leader. Please, the leader isn't the system. The leader should be subordinate to the system. The constitution is the very political system of any country! In short, Masigan focused on the argument than the person of Duterte, whom he is a critic! Masigan focused on what Duterte could do right, giving credit to where credit is due, while remaining a Duterte critic!
In short, being part of CoRRECT or any movement to reform the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, doesn't require one to support Duterte or Marcos. One can be a Liberal Party supporter (or Dilawan) and become a Dilawan for constitutional reform. The Liberal Party would've been the Opposition party today if Uniteam were the Government party. However, that could've only happened under a parliamentary system. Instead of focusing on the argument's merit, some people would resort to illogical arguments because it's so much easier huh?