Charter change minus term extension

Now that President Aquino has made it clear he will not seek a second term and that he’s looking forward to his freedom in 2016 and being able to eat out with his close friends — it’s time for this country to seriously make meaningful changes in our Constitution to compete in an ever changing global economy.

Hopefully, all speculations about term extension will be put to rest because this is what most everyone — including many P-Noy supporters — does not want him to pursue. Even constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas — one of those who crafted the 1987 Constitution — agrees that now is not the right time to be doing any moves for a term extension.

Many believe that a six-year term is the best since it gives enough time for people to see if a president is doing well — or not. If early on he shows indications of being a bad president, then there is always a way to remove him from office through impeachment. But if he does well, six years is more than enough to accomplish things and start initiatives that his successor can continue.

As pointed out also by Speaker Sonny Belmonte — Charter change for the purpose of lifting term limits is “very divisive. Of more importance is the amendment of the economic provisions, which is really what we need to do. Had our legislators taken the necessary steps to change the restrictive and outdated provisions a long time ago, perhaps we would be stronger economically and maybe way ahead of most of our Asian neighbors in preparation for the ASEAN economic integration in 2015.

Comparing ourselves to other countries in Southeast Asia, the Philippines is way behind as far as foreign direct investments (FDI) are concerned. According to the ASEAN Foreign Direct Investment Statistics Database, Singapore received the highest FDI at $60.6 billion, followed by Indonesia with $18.4 billion, Thailand with $13 billion while Malaysia received $12.3 billion and Vietnam, $8.9 billion in 2013. And the Philippines? Around $3.86 billion – higher than Cambodia’s $1.27 billion, Laos’ $426.7 million and Brunei with $908.4 million. Brunei being a wealthy nation is not really pushing for foreign investments. As for Myanmar, it received a higher FDI than the Philippines in 2011.

As Fr. Bernas noted, the situation today is very different than when the 1987 Constitution was framed, admitting that we need more foreign capital and describing the current Charter as “very reactive.” Amending the economic provisions is very vital, the Ateneo Law School dean emeritus emphasized — something that Speaker Belmonte couldn’t stress hard enough, saying that amending the economic provisions will help the Philippines surge forward.

Despite what naysayers may claim, changing the Charter’s economic restrictions will benefit not just big business but the people in general, because more investments means more capital that would create more jobs that pay better. Although the dollar remittances of our overseas Filipino workers remain to be a major driver of the economy, we still would like to see a big number of them coming back to the Philippines since our growing population will also need their services, like our nurses for instance.

Clearly, there are many other problems to contend with, like the growing audacity and impudence of China with regard to disputed territories in the Spratlys. Philippine-occupied territories continue to be in a sorry state, like in Ayungin Shoal where a sad looking, rusty World War II-era vessel is all that is keeping China from grabbing the reef for itself. China is in engaged in a building frenzy, constructing military structures and facilities on artificially reclaimed areas in a bid to establish “ownership” of the disputed territories.

And while our soldiers have shown their admirable courage as they defiantly stood their ground in Golan Heights despite being surrounded by Syrian rebels, everyone knows we don’t have the firepower to match a giant like China. No doubt the US will honor its commitment with the mutual defense treaty, but definitely not to fight our war – God forbid – if it ever comes to that.

There are people who believe there is some truth to President Aquino’s concern regarding the Supreme Court’s “judicial overreach.” Business groups feel that some of the powers of the SC should be tempered in matters pertaining to the economy. In the early ‘90s for example – in a bid for the Manila Hotel – Malaysian firm Renong Berhad emerged as the winner – but the Supreme Court stepped in and disqualified the Malaysian group – expanding the definition of “national patrimony” to mean not only natural resources but even hotels. Perhaps Manila Hotel would have been better off in the hands of a professional group like Renong Berhad that was willing to pour in resources to turn the hotel into a world class establishment.

A recent New York Times editorial stated that there will always be “unfinished business,” and this is so true with corruption that has become a part of life in this country. Like prostitution, corruption has been in existence for centuries so it will be next to impossible to totally eradicate it. At the very least, one can minimize it to the so-called “10-percenters” — and no one will argue President Aquino has done what he could to minimize corruption to a certain extent.

The time for institutional changes has come and President Aquino can institutionalize the changes he started by supporting the call to amend the restrictive economic provisions. He should not worry too much about his legacy. After all, it will be history that will be the final judge. The only thing permanent in this world is change — and the time to do it is now.

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected]