On the 38th anniversary of the EDSA People Power Revolution on Feb. 25th, several concerned citizens, historians, and human rights organizations held protests to remember the end of the dark period of the Ferdinand Marcos Sr. dictatorship that was marked with tortures, disappearances, extrajudicial killings, corruption, and other human rights abuses.
Feb. 25 was also an opportune time to express the collective opposition to the push for Charter Change as a blatant attempt to revise history.
If we recall, the 1987 Constitution and the ideals of Maka-Dios,Makatao, Maka- Kalikasan, Maka-Bansa rose to prominence, formulated as a document to ensure that the Filipino nation would adhere to democratic and republican principles as the foundation of the Filipino political system.
Analysts and critics have opined that “economic cha-cha” is a convenient gateway towards the ultimate goal of tinkering with the 1987 Constitution’s political provisions, that were largely born out of the broad anti-dictatorship struggle; and that amending particular political provisions, such as dropping the politician’s term limits, has “always been a Marcos obsession to enable them to stay in power indefinitely”.
President Marcos Jr. said he would study the latest attempt at the House led by his cousin, Speaker Martin Romualdez, to revise the Constitution for the purpose of making the Philippines “an investment friendly place”.
Do we really need to pursue changes in our Constitution to attract investors?
In a survey in September 2022, charter change did not even come up in the list of Filipinos’ most urgent national concerns.
In contrast, what came up on top as the Filipinos’ most urgent concerns were: controlling inflation (66%), increasing the pay of workers (44%), creating more jobs (35%), and reducing poverty (34%).
Recall that in March 2022, former President Duterte signed a law amending the 1936 Public Service Act, which paved the way for a 100% foreign ownership in industries like telecoms, airlines, shipping, tollways, transport network and railways – all without having to change the Constitution.
UP Prof. Winnie Monsod, former head of the National Economic & Development Authority, argued compellingly, citing study after study that charter change is not a necessary condition for a country to grow its economy.
Professor Monsod said: “Amending the Constitution is neither necessary nor a sufficient condition to attract FDI [foreign direct investments],and may [even] entail burdensome costs… and that there are more urgent constraints to investing like infrastructure, governance, corruption, ease of doing business, looming power crisis, monopolies or oligopolies, red tape.”
Or if the rule of law is broken, and the application of the law depends on one’s income or connections.
Both Chambers are seeking to amend certain economic provisions of the 1987 Charter, particularly Articles 12 Section 11 (60-40 ownership of franchise); 14 Section 4 (60-40 ownership of educational institutions); and 16 Section 11 (70-30 ownership in the advertising industry).
Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri promised President Marcos that their bill on economic charter change, the Resolution of Both Houses 6, would be passed before Congress goes on a Lenten break next month. The Senate’s RBH6 and the House’s RBH7 are nearly identical save for the voting provision, in which the Senators added the phrase “each House voting separately.”
NO TO CHA-CHA!
_________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]
