PAGBABAGO

It seems that our legislators are in a rush to change the “restrictive” economic provisions in the Constitution. The primary reason given is that we are not attracting enough foreign direct investment 

But two senators, Senators Grace Poe and Risa Hontiveros as well as former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio disagree. Poe said we had made successful strides in liberalizing the economy while Hontiveros noted our failure to address anti-competitive monopolistic behavior. 

According to Carpio, “the real causes of low foreign investment must be addressed – high power rates, bureaucratic regulation and infrastructure. We have one of the most liberal foreign investment laws in Asia. We have also passed several laws to open the economy 100 percent to foreign ownership.”
But those who oppose amendments at this time have other reasons beyond the perceived lack of competitiveness because of restrictive economic provisions. Many oppositors including some among the Charter framers, believe that while we need Charter amendments, the time is not now. 

We need further reflection, research and consultations with the people who will be most affected by Charter change – the marginalized, and the youth who will be the implementors and beneficiaries. 

We therefore urge the President and the legislators to do what I believe should be done first – set up a group that shall study the requirements of the New Global Economy using criteria of social justice and the changing economic, social and political environment. 

We can start by taking note of similar initiatives like the Davos Agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and experiences of the various agencies of the United Nations especially those in agriculture, education, economy, science and technology, and respected international development agencies serving marginalized groups. 

After Covid-19, the Climate Change conferences, emergence of new technologies like AI and the rapidly changing environment of the 4th Industrial Revolution, as well as studies and interventions, we need to evaluate our country response to these concerns. And ensure that our response would lead to achieving the goals of resiliency, inclusivity, digital equity, gender equality, and resiliency, among others. 

The 1987 Constitution was primarily a response to the socio-economic and political experiences of the earlier period including martial law. Should we draft a Charter for our 21st century, we would have to examine our experiences during these past four decades. 

Considering the challenges we had faced during these years, our task would turn out to be more than lifting the restrictive provisions in the Constitution and strengthening our foreign direct investment strategy. 

We need to understand the implications of the changes in our environment and how we can use them to our advantage. 

We need to consult people on the ground, learn more about their real needs which shall determine future policies. 

We need to understand how to use digital technology in promoting some desired goals like shared ownership of enterprises, a cooperative economy, gender equality, and a relevant learning system.

The 1987 Constitution has already introduced provisions that empower citizens, promote education, science and technology, culture and the arts that could contribute to participative democracy. 

It has created independent constitutional bodies to fortify the system of checks and balances and structures that could be further strengthened to achieve sustainable growth – cooperatives, alternative learning systems, and access to justice. 

Then perhaps, after such study and consultation, and a framework to guide us, we shall be ready for Charter change. ([email protected])