Do we really need a new Constitution?

A lot of the politics in the ascendancy of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the Speakership are just the intramurals towards the final realignment in the country’s political leadership.

These are urgent so it appears in the timetable of those who would not wait for the next presidential elections and see Charter change as the political opportunity and process to engineer such change much earlier. The agenda of Federalism and neoliberal privileges for foreign investors mask the intention of transitory provisions.

Since Marcos tinkered with the 1935 Constitution and created his Constitution to perpetuate himself in power, Filipinos have rightfully become suspicious of politicians trying to perpetuate themselves. Such was the quandary faced by Ramos who was the complete servant of the World Bank (WB) who wanted to amend the new 1987 Constitution to bring in neoliberal provisions favoring foreign investment. He could not overcome the suspicions of the public.

The same lot befell Estrada who had to propose an incomprehensible “two-step cha-cha” if only to dispel the notion that he was only after extending his term of office. Some time in her terms of office, Arroyo again tried and failed to achieve the same.

Duterte is apparently bolder (or Marcosian?). He launched a triad initiative for Federalism along with the neoliberal proposals demanded by global corporations and his plans for perpetuating his administration through another version of the dreaded transitory provisions.

Is it worth tinkering with the Constitution to bring in provisions for Federalism but risk the double whammy of creating another strongman and bring in foreign economic control?

Do we really need a new Constitution to promote Federalism?

Or do we really need to amend the Constitution because we don’t have enough capital to run our own strategic businesses?

The Philippines has long been under pressure from the WB and International Monetary Fund and multinational corporations to open up critical sectors to foreign investment. Three years ago, the World Trade Organization, along with powerful economies, joined the fray to squeeze the country to amend the Constitution to bring in neoliberal provisions to open the country to foreign investors.

There are several constitutional limits for foreign investments such as reserving a minimum 60 percent to Filipino citizens and corporations in the exploitation of natural resources, in the ownership of private lands, in the operation of public utilities and schools, in investments in certain areas of the economy and 100 percent reservation to ownership in media and 70 percent in advertising.

The versions already proposed by RBH 08, PDP and the HOR Committee on Constitutional Amendments go furthest in doing this. These differences all point to general direction of an overly market-oriented and foreign capital-driven economy at the expense of national economic development.

But the Consultative Committee (ConCom) version, while retaining social justice and nationalist economic provisions, also does so by likewise opening up vital sectors to foreign capital (by law). These long-standing constitutional provisions are unfortunately hardly put into practice anyway so retaining them is not by any means advancing social justice and economic nationalism but merely maintaining the status quo of having good language in the Constitution that is disregarded in economic policy practice.

The general run of the ConCom though appears to keep many of the limits and reservations for Filipino citizens it contains a damning caveat that allows Congress the power to redefine the reservations and under certain cases or circumstances. Provisions with the phrase “Congress may by law change the voting capital requirement…” used instead of “unless otherwise provided by law” as other versions propose are similar to Congress approving a corporate license for a media outfit. This is subject to a lot of lobby and corruption and has no place in a Constitution.

It also apparently becomes possible for foreigners to own land with the insertion of the phrase “in cases as provided by federal law” in the provision on acquiring lands of the public domain. Similarly, insertion of the phrase “Congress may by law change the requirements for lease of alienable lands” presumably creates the opening for foreigners to be treated as Filipinos vis-a-vis alienable lands.

The 1987 Constitution’s nationalist and State interventionist language which can be the legal basis for development policies are successfully used by many developed and developing countries. Such as a Constitution founded on people power and sovereignty of a country.

Market interventions, equity restrictions, strict regulation of foreign investment and a bias for domestic firms have been important for virtually every developed country, especially in its earlier stages of industrial take-off such as the US, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China and Russia. There is no reason even more now to kowtow to any foreigner to sell our wealth and our economy.