People's Draft: Sa maliliit na distrito, may boses ang tao

 

Peoples Draft presentation v30 TanDem

People's Draft: Maraming produkto, mababang presyo

People's Draft: Maraming negosyo, maraming trabaho

Philippine Congress receives “People’s Draft” petition

 

Philippine Congress receives “People’s Draft” petition

The two houses of congress recently received a petition to revise the constitution with a “People’s Draft”, signed by various organizations and some individuals. The Philippine Senate received the petition two days ago while the House of Representatives also received the same petition a day later.

According to Atty. Dindo Donato, general counsel of Tangulang Demokrasya (TanDem) – lead proponent of the People’s Draft, the petition seeks action from our lawmakers to deliberate, approve, adopt and endorse the draft to the Commission on Elections for the conduct of a plebiscite “simultaneous with the national and local elections” next year.

“TanDem has initiated the framing of the People’s Draft four years ago and has had consultations with various groups and individuals to write the draft reflecting the desires of ordinary Filipinos”, said Donato. “Concerns voiced through those consultations include the creation of more meaningful and decent jobs in the country, the perennial fight against corruption, the need for better election process and the distribution of economic gains to the poorest of regions”, he added.

Still according to Donato, the result is a draft which seeks to promote “free and open competition in the economy through foreign investment liberalization, subject to safeguards and reciprocity; participation and consensus in governance through ’collegial rule’, vesting ultimate political power in the national assembly and the local councils; fair and equal opportunity in local governance through multiple ‘single-member districts’; immediate accountability for chief executives through removal by ‘vote of no confidence’; regional empowerment through delegation or devolution of major ‘decision-making powers’; and inclusive society of Christians, Muslims and Indigenous Peoples for national unity.”

Among the groups who signed the People’s Draft petition with TanDem include the Center for Preservation of Historical Rights of the Sulu Archipelago – an unincorporated people’s organization that advocates the preservation of the “History and Rights of the Sulu Sultanate”, and the CoRRECT (Constitutional Reform & Rectification for Economic Competitiveness & Transformation) Movement – a broad unincorporated alliance of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), local employees, professionals, entrepreneurs, and the youth, that advocates the “Three Point Agenda” common among “constitutional reformers” (i.e. economic liberalization, evolving federalism, parliamentary system).

Also among the petitioners are the Kapatiran Party (or Alliance for the Common Good) – a national political party registered in the Philippines since 2004, and the Lumad Mindanaw Peoples Federation (LMPF) – a people’s organization registered as a non-stock corporation promoting the interests of the Indigenous People in Mindanao.

The individuals who signed the petition are political analyst Ma. Lourdes N. Tiquia, and former Congressman Wilfrido B. Villarama.

For its part, TanDem (Tanggulang Demokrasya) is a people’s organization of concerned citizens organized in 2010 under the guidance of its advisor, the late Fr. Romeo “Archie” J. Intengan, S.J. It was officially registered in 2012, with Mrs. Evelyn Kilayko as Chairperson and Mrs. Teresita Baltazar as President. Among the other advocacies of TanDem include transparency in automated elections as it supports the Hybrid Bill that calls for the manual counting or audit of votes cast, combined with the automated canvassing of precinct results.

There are several moves to reform the constitution already resulting in several drafts in the past. Most recently, there are the Bayanihan Draft written by a constitutional committee formed by President Rodrigo Duterte and the PDP Laban Draft written by members of the political party to which the president belongs. However, the People’s Draft is the only one that claims to be crowd-sourced, having gone through different revisions over the years from comments and suggestions from “crowds”. The People’s Draft is also the only one that comes from the ground up, meaning it is not initiated by government officials or institutions but by ordinary people, hence its name. - S. A. Mable
Mai News, 24 September 2021 https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=4383590078345013&id=452401011463959

Civil society for constitutional reforms (Part 2) - Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas

 

Civil Society for Constitutional Reforms (Part 2)

Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas

06 July 2017

      TanDem, a part of civil society organized by concerned citizens to promote inclusive growth through political reforms, has proposed to amend the Philippine Constitution of l987 by removing the restrictions, limitations and prohibitions against foreign direct investments.  After consulting a group of experts over a period of six months, the members of TanDem summarized the major reasons for their proposed amendments. I enumerate their major arguments.

         The Philippines has embraced massive poverty since the birth of the Republic until today. Out of the present estimated 104 million population, where some 65 million are in the labor force, about 4 million are unemployed while 12 million are underemployed.  To address massive poverty, it is necessary to raise equally massive capital to create or support sustainable jobs.  It costs about Php100,000.00 to employ a single employee for one full year, based on the lowest minimum wage and cost of business operations.  It would, therefore, cost at least a staggering 400 billion pesos to employ all the unemployed for just one year.

         Unfortunately, instead of making use of all available capital resources, whether local or foreign, for job generation, the 1987 Constitution—together with numerous congressional statutes and implementing rules and regulations—have instead chosen to restrict foreign direct investments in several sectors of the economy, to protect the monetary interests of Filipino business people belonging to the “mayaman” class, at the expense of Filipino workers and consumers of the middle and the “masa” classes, who are then systematically deprived of better job opportunities and cheaper goods and services.  These restrictions curtail the fundamental right to employment, which is the most important labor right that gives life to all other labor rights, such as those providing for the minimum wage, working conditions, social security, security of tenure, and self-organization.  Without the actual jobs, all other rights under the labor laws and social legislation mean nothing to the workers.

         About 10.2 million Filipinos live overseas of which some 2.4 million are overseas Filipino workers.  Common sense tells us that it is better to allow foreign investors to move into the country and hire Filipinos locally, rather than force Filipinos to move overseas, many of whom leave their families behind, and then work for foreign employers in a foreign land under a foreign government.  The liberalization of foreign investments, to complement local investments, reasonably lead to job creation (by establishing new business enterprises or expanding existing business enterprises); consumer price reduction (by increasing the supply of goods and services); technology transfer (by adopting and improving foreign technology); access to foreign markets (by tapping foreign investors to sell Philippine goods and services in their homelands); and anti-corruption (by allowing the entry of independent foreign competitors that can counteract the monopoly power of existing Filipino cartels of government suppliers.

         The fear of foreign investors taking over the Philippine economy is outdated.  We are no longer in colonial times during which foreign investors came with their foreign colonial armies who helped them take control of the national economy.  Foreign colonial armies have long gone, with only the Philippine security forces remaining to protect the interests of the Filipino people.  It is furthermore proposed that a Foreign Investment Council be established to address the risk of foreign governments, cartels and other groups who may pursue agendas prejudicial to the basic securities (external, internal, food, water, energy, environmental, resource, etc.) of the Filipino people.  The institution of a Foreign Investment Council may strike a balance between the need to liberalize foreign investments for economic and social gains, and the need to protect the basic securities of the people and the State.   The existing inflexible legal framework providing for blanket restrictions and criminal liability for violations drive away the legitimate foreign investors while endowing Filipino business people the license to capture the local market for themselves, disregarding the divergent interests of the Filipino workers and consumers. 

         These arguments were not arrived at willy nilly. They were distilled from volumes of proceedings of many hours of discussion of members of the academe, government, business and civil society.  The only guiding principle was the common good of society, defined as a juridical or social order that enables every member of society to attain his or her fullest integral human development.  By being more open to Foreign Direct Investments, countries like China and Vietnam, have within the last twenty or so years attained higher levels of human development that we have.  It is about time that we do amend the Constitution for the sake of future generations who will benefit most from a more open economy than the one we have lived with over the last thirty years.  For comments, my email address is bernardo.villegas@uap.asia.

http://www.bernardovillegas.org/index.php?go=/Articles/723/

Civil society for constitutional reforms (Part 1) - Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas

 Civil Society for Constitutional Reforms (Part 1)

Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas

06 June 2017

 

          Reforming Philippine society to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth is painstakingly slow that sometimes one is tempted to give up.  Even President Duterte realizes how difficult it is to promote good governance and fight corruption. In a less than a year of his Administration, he has sacked a good number of officials he appointed himself and whom he trusted as good and loyal friends because they were not beyond reproach.  No society can progress very much without a clean and efficient State.  When can we reach that desirable goal?  Probably not in my lifetime, considering how other countries very much ahead of us in economic development like South Korea and Malaysia still have their shares of corruption scandals. 

         I console myself, however, that the Philippines is fortunate for having a civil society sector that is one of the most developed in the world.  This civil society oftentimes compensates for the ineptitude and lack of integrity of government officials.  There are really thousands of nongovernmental organizations that are assiduously working for the common good in fighting poverty, improving governance, educating the masses, preserving Philippine culture, protecting the physical environment, strengthening the Filipino family, overcoming gender and other forms of discrimination, fighting crime, and addressing human trafficking and the drug problem.  And many more.  Although some may disagree, I attribute this strength of Philippine civil society to two factors:  the Christian culture we inherited from the Spanish colonizers and the spirit of voluntarism learned from the Americans.  As documented by a professor of history at the University of Asia and the Pacific, Dr. Juan Mesquida, charitable foundations for the sick, for the poor and the needy founded by Catholic lay people, were already important institutions during the Spanish colonial times.  I am not even referring here to the corporal and spiritual works of mercy that religious orders, especially of nuns, have put up very early in the history of Christianity.  As regards the spirit of voluntarism in the United States, one can only read the writings of French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville about the dynamism of American civil society very early in their history as a democratic nation. 

         I would like to pay tribute in this article to an NGO that has been working for the improvement of Philippine democracy.  I am referring to Tanggulang Demokrasya (TanDem), Inc., an association of distinguished professionals led by Chairperson Evelyn Kilayko and President Teresita Daza-Baltazar with the expert legal assistance of Atty. Demosthenes Donato. TanDem patiently and laboriously organized a series of Roundtable Discussions (RTD) in which they engaged experts on the issue of amending the 1987 Philippine Constitution to help the present and future Governments to promote inclusive growth, that is, growth that will improve the lives of the impoverished masses.  Let me go for the jugular.  After mustering some very powerful arguments culled from leading economists, political scientists, sociologists, philosophers, and legal experts, they are recommending the following: 

         a)   The amendment of the 1987 Constitution and conduct of the required plebiscite on or about the next national and local elections set on the second Monday of May in the year 2019 under the term of office of the incumbent Duterte administration, to repeal ALL limitations, restrictions and prohibitions against foreign investments and services, to the end that the Constitution will embody only the general principles governing the national economy and patrimony, leaving specific economic policies to the wisdom of the legislative branch of government. 

         b)   Pending the amendment of the l987 Constitution, the urgent repeal of congressional statutes that impose limitations, restrictions and prohibitions against foreign investments and services, to the full extent practicable and beneficial, subject to the principle of international reciprocity and the protection of the basic securities of the State through the institution of a Foreign Investment Council. 

         c) Pending the amendment of the 1987 Constitution, the immediate repeal of implementing rules and regulations that impose limitations, restrictions and prohibitions against foreign investments and services, notwithstanding the lack of any constitutional or statutory bases for the limitation, to promptly initiate the progressive pursuit of liberalization of foreign direct investments to augment local investments for national development and job creation. 

         With due respects to the other surviving members of the Philippine Commission of 1986 that drafted the Philippine Constitution of l987, some of whom are not in favor of amending the Constitution, I fully endorse the recommendations of TanDem. They capture very faithfully the personal opinions I held as a member of the Philippine Commission about the need to open the national economy to foreign investments. I was, however, constantly overruled by the majority of the Commissioners who held protectionist and ultra-nationalistic views that led to the restrictive provisions enshrined in our present Constitution. Having participated in the RTDs organized by TanDem I can attest to the fact that its members had nothing but the common good of the Filipinos, especially the needy and the poor, in mind.  May their tribe increase.  In the second part of this article, I outline the strong and lucid arguments that they presented for their recommendations.  (To be continued). 

 

http://www.bernardovillegas.org/index.php?go=/Articles/721/

Constitutional change - Ma. Isabel Ongpin

 

Constitutional change

By Ma. Isabel Ongpin

September 10, 2021

 

IN last week's column I mentioned that some provisions of the Constitution like the party-list system and the anti-dynasty sentiment should be revisited. We have seen that in their present configuration in our society these two provisions have been manipulated to result in undemocratic and exclusive benefits for the very people already holding political power, shutting out the rest. Ironically, this is the class that the party-list and anti-dynasty provisions are meant to remove and make room for others. A travesty of the intent of the Constitution has been made, which cannot be left as it is.

Recently, the House of Representatives tried to pass certain economic provisions to amend the Constitution, but the Senate was not interested. Every so often a proposal for constitutional amendments is presented and shut down, usually by people in office.

There have been appeals during various administrations after 1987 to amend the Constitution of that year. We have had three constitutions in our history - the 1935 Constitution in the Commonwealth era, the 1973 Constitution during Martial Law and the 1987 Constitution after the EDSA Revolution.

It seems as we speak that there are organizations of citizens out there who are seriously pursuing amendments to the Constitution or even a new constitution from a people's perspective, aside from a few members of Congress. It may be germane to mention here that the 1935 Constitution was made by an elective assembly of citizens who were not all necessarily politicians. The 1973 Constitution was done by an elective assembly, but it was under Martial Law, which dilutes its standing as representative of a society's wishes. The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a commission consisting of appointed members who reflected the administration of the time.

Constitutions are the bedrock of laws and government procedures. They are considered the foundation of a society's way of governing and living. There is expected to be a certain sacredness, impermeability and timelessness in them.

But sometimes they need to be reviewed, particularly if new conditions and new problems come after they were adapted. The United States Constitution, famed and emulated as it is from the day it was formulated, has had many amendments over the years in keeping with the times.

Here there is a people's organization called Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem) that is a proponent for adopting a whole new constitution. They have come up with a crowd-sourced draft together with another group, Publicus Asia (a registered lobbying and campaigns group). The Tan Dem draft is a 10-page document that it claims would strengthen and defend our democracy. Tan Dem was organized in 2010 under the guidance of Romeo J. Intengan, the Jesuit activist, who devoted his life to fighting for an inclusive Philippine society. Tan Dem's crowd-sourced draft is from 2012.

This proposed constitution as drafted features a parliamentary democracy, transparent automated elections (they support the hybrid electoral system) and new economic, political and social reforms. It is entirely new and recalls our current constitution basically only through the same language and terms. But it is completely different.

 

Among their minor proposals is the lifting of restrictions on the entry of capital into the country for job creation, price reduction and tax generation subject to safeguards.

 

The government it envisions is one of collegial rule with power vested in a National Assembly and local councils, including regional empowerment where the decision-making is from the bottom up and not top down. It has detailed its proposals for a complete change of governance.

 

The point is that there are people-oriented, mass-based organizations that are not happy with the form of governance in this country today. Opportunities, they say, are limited for the general citizenry and skewed towards the elite - politicians, big business, some institutions. Our leaders are more interested in keeping themselves in office than governing for equality or the future for which there is very little interest in making changes in governance. Too much power is vested in certain offices without the necessary use of checks and balances. The constitutional reformers want a system change which they say will result in culture change. It sounds easier said than done even with a new constitution. In other words, there exists a demand for revision, addition or more explicit provisions for the constitution that make for more equality and opportunity for the general public.

 

While there are these sentiments and organized efforts for constitutional change, it must be realized that it would take a long, drawn-out effort to arrive at a new constitution, or even some crucial amendments. To be genuine and widely accepted, an elected constitutional assembly should be formed to undertake the amendments and not our current legislators making themselves as such.

 

Moreover, in the present conditions of political crises and polarization, moving towards something that demands unity to compose is not easily done. Patience, stamina, longevity must be present, and the right time for them.

 

But certainly, it is time in the coming elections to bring up the need for constitutional change and reach out to candidates for office to convince them that constitutional change is needed. The candidates should be made to think about Charter change. It would be the first step towards getting there.

 

Perhaps amendments rather than a totally new constitution is the way to go when things calm down to post-pandemic, normal economic times. We need to catch up from the present crisis just as much of the world has to.

 

But we must always keep an open mind for reform, for inclusion and for a better society. It can help to amend/change/reform our basic law accordingly in the right time of awareness, calm and introspection. And the main proponents should be ordinary citizens expressing the will of the majority. And they should be heard.

 

 

https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/10/opinion/columns/constitutional-change/1814137

People's Draft: budget savings for government

 

People's Draft: Council-Mayor LGU, voting for councilor

 

People's Draft: Council-Mayor LGU, voting for mayor

 

People's Draft: Unicameral Parliament - voting for president

 

Amendments 2, S1 EP9

Amendments 1, S1 EP8

Foreign Investments 2, S1 EP7

Foreign Investments 1, S1 EP6

Federal System, S1 EP5

Term Limits, S1 EP4

Parliamentary Form 2, S1 EP3

Parliamentary Form 1, S1 EP2

Constitutional Reform, S1 EP1

Tanong-ng-Bayan Online, Constitutional Reform, EP1

Tanong-ng-Bayan Online

Constitutional Reform, EP1

Host: Engr. Arnel Endrinal

Guest: Atty. Dindo Donato

https://youtu.be/BAGnVwXxwO0

EP1 Constitutional Reform

EP2 Parliamentary Form 1

EP3 Parliamentary Form 2

EP4 Term Limits

EP5 Federal System

EP6 Foreign Investments 1

EP7 Foreign Investments 2

EP8 Amendments 1

EP9 Amendments 2

The Konstitusyon Podcast with Dindo Donato of TanDem

 

Tanong ng Bayan Online, 20 February 2021

 

Questions and answers on Constitutional Reform

General questions about changing the constitution:

1. Why is there a need to change the constitution? 

There’s a need to change the constitution because our problems are not only about how the laws are implemented. They are also about how the laws are made. This includes the constitution, the highest law of the land.

2. Why not just pass new laws if there are changes in our country we want implemented?

Laws will not be enough because the gravest problems in legal system come from the constitution itself. These problems are not only economic, but also political and social.

3. What are the major changes included in the People’s Draft? 

The major changes include the following: to open the economy to foreign business, otherwise closed for local business only; to shift from “one-man rule” to “collegial rule;” to shift from “voting at large” to “voting by district;” to establish regional centers of government; to equally promote the tri-people for unity in diversity. At the local level, voting will be by single-member subdistricts. By tri-people, I refer to the Christians, Muslims and Indigenous Peoples.

About parliamentary system:

4. Why do you want to have a parliamentary system of government? Why what’s wrong with a Presidential system?

The presidential system is basically one-man rule. A single popular individual, not necessarily supported by majority of the people, controls the entire executive branch of government. On the other hand, the parliamentary system is based on majority rule, through a college or group of people’s representatives voted in multiple small districts nationwide. 

5. Isn’t the USA a Presidential system, yet they are the biggest economy in the world?

The US system is not purely presidential. The president himself is voted like the prime minister, through a body of representatives elected in multiple small districts nationwide. The US system is also founded on a network of components state, each one with capability to be a country by itself. Thus, the US experience does not apply to us.

6. How do you answer the fact the Marcos created a parliamentary system and it did not turn out too well for the country?

Mr. Marcos did not create a parliamentary system. The 1973 constitution was a semi-parliamentary (or semi-presidential) system. It had an independent chief executive, and a cabinet dominated by members of parliament (or Batasan). More importantly, the 1973 constitution was not fully implemented, particularly the succession provisions for president. Instead, we had the 1976 amendments allowing Mr. Marcos to rule indefinitely w/o term limits. It also gave him legislative powers side-by-side the parliament (or Batasan). With the 1976 amendments, the system became a supra presidential system.

7. How can we assure that we will not end up with a dictatorship when we have a parliamentary system?

A parliamentary system can work better than a presidential system to prevent a dictatorship, because the former is based on collegial rule, while the latter is actually already one-man rule.

8. In a parliamentary system, it is like that it is congress sets the agenda for the country. Why do you trust congressmen too much when we think we cannot trust them?

Yes, it is the congress of people’s representatives elected nationwide, that controls the agenda of the country. That is much better than one person, who does not necessarily have majority support, controlling the national agenda. Moreover, congressmen elected from multiple small districts, are better known to their constituents, compared to the president, vice-president and senators elected nationwide at large, whom the voters know only through mass media.

Under the People’s Draft, to promote political democracy, a similar selection process is adopted at the local level. Councilors will be elected from multiple small single-member subdistricts, where candidates are better known to the voters.

9. People suspect that congress would want this to perpetuate their terms, what do you say to this?

I have not seen any proposal from congress to provide for extended terms without need for elections. Anyway, to prevent this, our group of advocates came up its own crowd-sourced constitution called the People’s Draft, to clearly and strongly prohibit any extension of terms without elections.

10. Which countries are successful under a parliamentary system?

We have the United Kingdom and Japan, from both the West and the East. Closer to home we have Malaysia and Thailand.

11. What do you say to the idea that people will lose their capability to vote for their leader directly for president?

That idea is wrong. We simply need to follow the way US elections for electoral college are done. The ballots will indicate not only the candidates for the district, but also the nominee for the president. The voters then can choose who to vote for. 

In the People’s Draft, a similar voting process is adopted at the local level. Here the ballots will indicate not only the candidates for the single-member subdistrict, but also the nominee for the mayor. 

12. By the way, in your draft, how do you call the leader of the country? President? Doesn’t it make it presidential?

In the People’s Draft, the chief executive is called president, because this is the term understood by the people for the top executive post. Anyway, Congress may change the job title later.

13. If there is a popular personality who wants to become president, what is the steps he or she should take? Can he/she be President?

Under the People’s Draft, this popular personality should join or form a political party with a national constituency, because the parliamentary system is based on collegial rule, rather than by one-man rule. Here, it is a college or group of political personalities, acting together as one, that takes ultimate control of the government.

About terms and term limits:

14. In the people’s draft, will there be term limits? Are term limits good or bad? How about the argument that in a parliamentary system, it is impractical to have term limits because politicians rise from the ranks in the parliament before he or she becomes a leader of the parliament?

The People’s Draft provides for a 3-term limit, because it is a crowd-sourced constitution, and that is the feedback we got from the crowd. Personally, I think the argument for lifting term limits is reasonable and justified, particularly for a parliamentary system based on collegial rule, where party members move up the leadership ladder only through a considerable amount of time. For now, however, I think it’s more practical to go by popular sentiment, because of too much negativity in mass media. Anyway, the People’s Draft contains a provision allowing Congress to lift term limits later, say 15 years after its approval.

15. Why do you come up with a 5 year term? Why not 4, why do away with 6? Why not 3?

Based on general feedback, 3 years is too short. During the 1st year the pols learn, the 2nd year they work, and the 3rd year they campaign. Before the 1987 constitution, the term was 6 years. 5 years is therefore a compromise. Moreover, it’s 5 not 4, for consistency with economic development plans which are generally designed in multiples of 5 years. 

On federalism:

16. Unlike in the USA, they have large states. Aren’t we too small for a federal republic? Do we really need federalism? What other countries are federal systems?

The People’s Draft does not impose federalism nationwide. Instead, it implements flexible regional decentralization, where the people have 3 choices, i.e. regional authority (like SBMA), autonomous region (like BARMM), and substate (like Sabah). 

Since our country is composed of 3 peoples and cultures (i.e. Christians, Muslims, Indigenous Peoples) spread across 7,100 islands, I believe some regions may eventually choose to have their own substate. 

Malaysia is a much smaller country, but it has federal form of government. In the end, it is not only about size. It is also about culture, politics, economy, and the choice of the people.

The best example applicable to us would be Malaysia.

17. How is it different to be under a federal system versus our present system?

Under the federal system, a substate will be sovereign, and will have its own legislative and executive branches, and later its own judicial branch. It will have its own internal security force to secure persons and properties, but not its own police or military. Secession will be prohibited, and legislative powers on taxation and business limited.

18. I understand that the People’s Draft is proposing a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach? Can you explain the difference between these approaches?

By “bottom up” approach, we allow the people of the regions to decide the type of government they will have. If they want an autonomous region or substate, they should work for it and win a regional plebiscite, in the same way that BARMM was created. 

By “top down” approach, federalism or regional autonomy for the entire country is already pre-designed, and the people will be limited to a yes or no vote in a national plebiscite.

19. Why does the people’s draft prefer the bottoms-up approach?

We believe it is important to respect the people’s right to self-determination. Moreover, we are a nation of tri-people (Christians, Muslims, Indigenous Peoples), with different and even conflicting histories. Thus, we prefer the bottom-up approach.

On FDIs:

20. Do we really need to open our country to FDIs? Why do we want to have FDIs?

We need FDIs to augment local capital for job creation, price reduction and tax generation. The policy to close the economy to foreign business has been there for 85 years already. Now, we have 10% of the population living overseas, and more than 20% living in poverty. We urgently need to make use of ALL resources available, to address the very serious economic problems we face.

21. What industries do you plan to open up? How about ownership of land? Why or why not?

Under the People’s Draft, everything is open except land, small-scale mining and micro-enterprise. Nonetheless, all foreign investments will subject to regulation by a foreign investment council to protect national security. The President or Congress may impose reciprocity in investments, if the national interest requires it. Congress may by law also impose limitations later, if again the national interest requires it. For professional practice, reciprocity is required, which is the current practice.

For land, I think alienable public lands should be for Filipinos only, because this is like their inheritance to the national patrimony. For private land however, I personally think we should be more open. For example, owners of very costly industrial facilities would be more comfortable if they owned, instead of just leased, the small parcel land where the facility is built. For mass housing, I think it will be cheaper if you have more developers competing with each other. Anyway, Congress has the power to prohibit foreign ownership of land at any time, if national interest requires it.

Nonetheless, the People’s Draft excludes land for now, because it is a crowd-sourced constitution, and this appears to be the sentiment of the crowd. Anyway, Congress is given the power to revisit this issue later, based on national interest.

22. Why not just revise the old constitution by putting in “unless otherwise provided by law” on the economic restrictions?

We have a Foreign Investments Act approved way back in 1991 to declare the policy to promote investments. However, for the past 30 years, there was no substantial follow through, except only for retail trade and financing companies. Thus, based on the track record of congress, I think nothing much will happen if we simply add the clause “unless otherwise provided by law.” 

23. Do you have examples of countries that succeed while their economy is open to foreign investors?

We have small and big countries close to us that successfully used foreign investments to grow and develop. There’s Singapore and China.

24. Are there countries where land can be owned by foreigners?

Based on an old survey by the World Bank on Investing Across Borders, about 20% of the countries globally prohibit foreign ownership of land. Thus, an overwhelming majority of about 80% allow it.

25. Are there countries that are closed to foreign investors that prosper on their own?

I understand that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may have developed with local investors taking the lead. They were family-owned corporations that partnered with government. In the Philippines however, the large family-owned businesses here did not go into industrialization. They instead went to real estate development, retail and public utility services. Moreover, the prospect of a family-owned business partnering with government may only be pulled down here as a “crony” corporation. Thus, the experience in our neighbors in North East Asia, does not necessarily apply to the country.

On procedure to amend the constitution:

26. I understand it is hard to change the constitution because the manner by which to change it is difficult – made so by the constitution itself. So how do you go about pushing for this?

Yes, by our hard experience first-hand, it is almost impossible to change the constitution, because the forces opposing it are apparently much stronger than a sitting president. Thus, I have come to believe that only a whole-of-nation approach will finally succeed in changing the constitution. It’s like a “soft” people’s power where all sectors, peoples and regions come together to achieve a common goal. 

With this mind, we are carrying out an information, education and communication campaign, in both social media and traditional media. We are also building a network of people’s organizations that believe in system change. Finally, we will be filing with the Senate and the House, a petition for indirect initiative to consider the People’s Draft for plebiscite in May 2022.

27. How about people’s initiative, why not push it this way?

The traditional people’s initiative needs at least 6M signatures. We do not have the capability to gather such a huge number of signatories. Thus, we will only go for building a network of people’s organizations across the different sectors, peoples and regions, to push for constitutional reform.

28. What is your take on Constituent Assembly? Why not Constitutional convention?

I do not believe that a constitutional convention will be any different from a constituent assembly. The members of a constitutional convention will be elected from the same districts where the present members of congress come from. Accordingly, I expect the same incumbent political forces, to dominate elections for delegates to the constitutional convention. 

29. If the draft is passed, what then is the proposed way of constitutional amendment in the people’s draft itself moving forward?

Our petition for indirect initiative merely calls on the Senate and House to convene as constituent assembly, and consider the People’s Draft for plebiscite in May 2022.

30. Isn’t it dangerous to have the way to amend the constitution easier than what we have now? Is it not dangerous the change the constitution every now and then where politicians are like having their way?

I think it’s anti-democratic and more dangerous to have the constitution written stone, that cannot be amended even by the people themselves. The problems we have are not only about how the laws are implemented. They are also about how the laws are made. This includes the constitution, the highest law of the land.

 

31. What about the lingering issues on the integrity of the automated elections, considering that a new constitution will require voting in a plebiscite?

The People’s Draft addresses this problem by incorporating a provision that expressly requires a manual count or audit, immediately after the close of voting, and even if the system is automated. This is our hybrid election clause. 

Interviewer: Mr. Arnel B. Endrinal

Interviewee: Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato

Date: 20 February 2021

Oligopolies stall Philippines development; more FDI needed – Salceda

 

Oligopolies stall Philippines development; more FDI needed – Salceda

Delon Porcalla 

(The Philippine Star )

- June 14, 2021 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines remains a laggard among its Asian neighbors, partly because of the influence oligopolies have over practically all administrations and, as such, local tycoons’ businesses thrive and deprive the country of much-needed foreign direct investments.

This was the assessment made recently by Albay Rep. Joey Salceda on the state of economic affairs in the country, in a recent digital forum sponsored by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

“Operating as monopolies and oligopolies, the corporate conglomerates find it convenient to restrict production and investment below the competitive level,” the economist lawmaker who chairs the House ways and means committee said.

An oligopoly exists when a market or industry is dominated by a small group of large producers and sellers.

Citing the country’s few FDI, Salceda explained that foreign investors’ “willingness to invest” is “inhibited by their concentrated ownership structure and their uncertainties about the stability and duration of government favoritism.”

The DILG-led webinar sessions are held in support of Resolution of Both Houses 2 (RBH 2), authored by Speaker Lord Allan Velasco, which seeks to open up the country to more foreign investors by amending restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution.

Asked about the impact of opening the economy on the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), Salceda said more FDI should benefit market competition.

“FDI restrictions lead to lack of competition in the country which increases oligopolistic power and reduces the need to invest. As a result, oligopolies are the ones benefitting from profits, influence law, and prevent foreign competitions to enter the Philippines,” he said.

Salceda lamented that while the country’s post-Marcos Constitution made sure dictatorships will never see the light of day again, its very rigid protectionist economic policies allowed domestic industries to be controlled by oligopolies.

“In trying to be nationalistic with our Constitution, we have ironically fattened our domestic oligopolies, at the expense of the people. Shamefully, and once again, we are the most oligopolistic market in the region,” he said.

Seeking to correct this is what moved the House to approve RBH 2 on third and final reading last June 1. It is now pending before the Senate.

Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr., who heads the House committee on constitutional amendments, remarked on Independence Day last Saturday that Filipinos should be “free” from the “economic chains” in the 1987 Constitution.

“Twenty (20) years of the 21st Century have passed and we are realizing now that we cannot prosper in the remaining decades of this 21st Century if we keep ourselves chained to these restrictive economic provisions,” said Garbin as he urged the Senate to act on RBH 2.

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2021/06/14/2105309/oligopolies-stall-philippines-development-more-fdi-needed-salceda?fbclid=IwAR28X0gIZ1b6NnwJbrv0u1lVii2gdWYVcT4AxylF5amRtGNE6gRPd4H79vQ

Easing of foreign ownership restrictions to break ‘vicious cycle’ of oligopolies —Salceda

   Albay Representative Joey Salceda

Easing of foreign ownership restrictions to break ‘vicious cycle’ of oligopolies —Salceda

By TED CORDERO, GMA News

Published June 11, 2021 2:51pm

Albay Representative Joey Salceda said Friday that easing foreign ownership restrictions in the 1987 Constitution will open the country for more foreign direct investments (FDIs) which will force local large enterprises to invest more and be competitive.

Salceda, an economist, is one of the key proponents of the Resolution of Both Houses No. 2, which seeks to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution.

The measure has been adopted by the House of Representatives on third and final reading on June 1.

RBH No. 2 is seeking to insert the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" to the constitutional provisions on national economy and patrimony; education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports; and on general provisions to give Congress flexibility to enact laws that would free up the economy to foreign investors.

Salceda said the measure will open the economy to more FDIs, noting that the Philippines is among the most restrictive to FDIs across various sectors.

“FDI restrictions also resulted in the presence of oligopolies, making the Philippines the most oligopolistic in the region,” the lawmaker said, citing data from the World Economic Forum.

Salceda said this is the case since the market is dominated by a small group of large conglomerates.

“Oligopolies further reduce the investment appetite. Operating as monopolies and oligopolies, the corporate conglomerates find it convenient to restrict production - and investment - below the competitive level,” he said.

“Also, their willingness to invest is inhibited by their concentrated ownership structure, and their uncertainties about the stability and duration of government favoritism,” he added.

To break the “vicious cycle” of undisturbed oligopolies, easing restrictions on FDIs will force local conglomerates to be “reasonably competitive” and “invest more” in the country.

“We are not really after the money, we are after the technology and knowledge transfer which foreign investments can provide,” Salceda said.

Citing data from the World Bank and Department of Finance estimates, the lawmaker said the Philippines’ share of FDIs in Southeast Asia declined from 5.1% in 1996 to 4.4% in 2019 due to restrictive and protectionist provisions in the Constitution.

Salceda said if the Philippines opens its doors further to foreign investors through easing of foreign ownership restrictions, the country can dramatically grow the same way as Vietnam when its gross domestic product grew five times from $6.472 billion in 1990 to $31.173 billion in 2000 when it passed its Foreign Investment law in 1987.

This is also favorable for the country as it moves to recover from a pandemic-induced recession.

The Makabayan bloc earlier said that the measure would not address the pandemic's adverse effects on the lives of Filipinos.

Other lawmakers also feared that this would only pave the way for the introduction of political amendments in the present Constitution such as term extension for some elected officials or lifting their term limits.

But Speaker Lord Allan Velasco has insisted that the intention is purely to help the Philippines rise from the pandemic and to make the country fully-competitive with Asian neighbors.—AOL, GMA News

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/791146/easing-of-foreign-ownership-restrictions-to-break-vicious-cycle-of-oligopolies-salceda/story/

Filipino last?

 Filipino last?

DEMAND AND SUPPLY - Boo Chanco 

(The Philippine Star) - June 7, 2021 - 12:00am

The Filipino First policy, a legacy from our post WW2 politicians, resulted in the Philippines being relegated from second only to Japan, to last in our region of tiger economies. It was a policy that was used by our economic elite for rent-seeking privileges.

With Filipino First, we developed a feeling of economic insecurity that made us afraid of foreign investors. This kind of economic nationalism is not useful in today’s world.

It enabled the economic elite to keep prices high to the disadvantage of Filipino consumers while delivering mostly substandard products and services. Puede na yan means Pinoys must live with less quality.

In the telecom industry, I still remember how my parents waited over 10 years to get a telephone line from PLDT.

Then the industry was liberalized by FVR, but investors were limited to Filipinos. There were six or seven groups that got franchises to compete with PLDT. Soon, they all sold out to PLDT or Globe. Rent-seeking at its best.

Telecoms is an industry that requires big investments. Only the international players can be expected to compete with our telecoms duopoly.

And if we really think about it, even the current prohibition for foreign ownership in telecoms looks silly, with Globe and PLDT effectively controlled by foreign entities. The largest shareholder of Globe is Singapore Telecom, not Ayala. PLDT is Indonesia’s First Pacific.

Now, you might say, if foreigners can do what they did in Globe and PLDT under current rules, is there still a need to amend the Public Service Act to liberalize foreign ownership?

Yes, because many foreign investors want straightforward rules and policies that allow them majority ownership. If they have to go to a local law firm to help them go around the Constitution, that makes them susceptible to corruption from local regulators and the courts.

The proposal to exclude telecommunications from the definition of public utility subject to the 60/40 rule had been passed by the House and is now pending in the Senate.

But some senators are using national security as an excuse to stop the measure. It is easy to suspect they are just trying to keep out competitors of the existing players.

The issue however, is beyond the telecoms industry. We simply need more foreign investors to come in and create jobs. But because they sense a lack of hospitality for foreign capital through our Filipino First policies, they go elsewhere, like Vietnam.

The latest preliminary data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) showed that foreign investments in 1Q21 fell by 32.9 percent YoY to P19.6 billion from P29.1 billion, marking the fifth consecutive quarter with a YoY decline and the lowest level since the P15.5 billion logged in 2Q20.

Foreign capital goes where it is welcome, and countries in our region are more hospitable to foreign capital than we are.

But why should we be afraid of foreign investments?

I received this e-mail from a senior Korean business executive who was reacting to a column I wrote on Vietnam and how it overtook us in economic growth.

“Your column on Feb 12, was quite instructive for me. I’ve been thinking over and I suggest you write another column on ‘Why Samsung Electronics went to Vietnam’.

“In 2008, the big boss of Samsung was here in the Philippines to evaluate the business conditions on which country is the best for them. But finally, Samsung chose Vietnam. Not the Philippines.

“This is quite an interesting story because the Philippines still has the same way of thinking as in 2008. There are many restrictions and limitations on foreign investors here in the Philippines. Under these restrictions, I am sure no big Korean investments will come.

“None of the other countries in the region have such restrictions on foreign investors. Every country is willing to give special incentives and benefits for foreign investors. Please study why Samsung went to Vietnam in 2008.

“Now, the biggest investors in Vietnam are Korean. More than 9000 Korean companies are located in Vietnam. (Here only a few hundred). Whenever I talk to officials of the government, I think they don’t know this story.”

Unfortunately, the Senate may continue to be a hindrance to foreign investments.

Senator Recto is opposing the PSA bill because he is afraid the Chinese may take over our telecom industry. Precisely why we need the PSA bill to pass… The industry grapevine tells me that two Japanese telcos (KDDI and Softbank) are eager to come in, but only if they will be legally allowed to invest in majority ownership.

To safeguard national security, three provisions were included: vetting by the National Security Council and approval by the President of all investments in critical infrastructure; prohibition of SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises) from investing in telecommunications or increasing their share; cybersecurity ISO certification for critical infrastructure.

The ban on investment of SOEs (State-owned Enterprises) in telecom and other critical infrastructure effectively bans all Chinese telecom companies because they are all SOEs. But China Telecom is already invested in Dito Telecommunity.

The danger to national security is not so much who owns the telecom companies, but who manufactures the equipment they use. All existing telecom companies here use China’s Huawei equipment.

By allowing Japanese, Korean and other foreign players in, we may be able to diversify our sources of equipment as well. This is important because eventually under the US CLEAN program, our telcos won’t be allowed into the US financial system using Huawei equipment. That cuts us from the US banking system.

In the proposed PSA, a blanket ban on all foreign ownership of telcos being contemplated by some senators will leave us with three telcos dependent on Huawei equipment. We run the risk of our telcos‘ technology getting obsolete as Huawei is denied advanced US technology.

Passing the PSA bill is the first step to create a favorable investment environment here for foreign investors.

We have to stop being afraid of foreign capital. We just have to properly regulate their activities. Letting them own their business here should not matter. They bring competition that benefits consumers, and we need the jobs they will create.

Our Filipino First policy only made Filipinos last. That’s the awful truth.

https://www.philstar.com/business/2021/06/07/2103544/filipino-last?fbclid=IwAR3cyQHpe1XI85-TlJJ_ANw7EO3r15S9jtUgZBZ8P-lRJSv7ZV4VyR9zw2c