‘Unless otherwise provided by law’
Last Wednesday I was at a hearing of the House committee on constitutional amendments, which had asked for data on “the quality of life of the Filipinos vis-à-vis the posted economic growth of the Philippines.” There I presented the SWS surveys that show that Philippine poverty, hunger and joblessness have been disappointingly flat in the past decade, despite rapid economic growth. I pointed out that joblessness of well above 20 percent is not new, but has been around since 2005, and also that “Yolanda” victims are no more jobless than nonvictims.
The SWS indicators differ in magnitude from the official statistics, but their time-trends are basically the same. The SWS statistics have extra advantages in frequency, timeliness, and realism with respect to the people’s feelings about economic conditions.
Notwithstanding their lack of progress, the Filipino people have been highly optimistic about their personal quality of life, ever since 2010. In fact, they expect improvements not only in their own lives personally, but also in the economy as a whole, which is a complete reversal from their dominant pessimism about the economy during the period 1999-2009.
The fact of noninclusive economic growth is a major premise of Resolution of Both Houses
No. 1, introduced by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, that proposes to entrust Congress with a master key to potentially open certain doors to the economy that the Constitution has kept locked against the entry of foreign investors.
Mr. Belmonte’s master key is the critical phrase “unless otherwise provided by law,” which he proposes to insert in the following sections of the Constitution:
1. Section 2 of Article XII, that limits government exploration, development and utilization of natural resources to ventures only with Filipinos or entities at least 60 percent owned by Filipinos;
2. Section 3 of Article XII, that bans private corporations from holding alienable lands of the public domain except by lease for at most
25 years (renewable for up to 25 more), of at most 1,000 hectares;
3. Section 7 of Article XII, that makes hereditary succession the only exception to transfers of private lands to entities qualified to hold lands of the public domain;
4. Section 10 of Article XII, that directs Congress to reserve some (unspecified) areas of investment to Filipinos or entities at least 60 percent Filipino;
5. Section 11 of Article XII, that limits franchises to operate a public utility only to Filipinos or entities at least 60 percent Filipino, and limits foreign participation in a public utility’s governing body to its proportionate share in capital;
6. Section 4 of Article XIV, that limits ownership of nonreligious educational institutions to Filipinos or entities at least 60 percent Filipino, and requires control and administration of such entities to be vested only in Filipinos; and
7. Section 11 of Article XVI, that limits ownership and management of mass media to Filipinos and entities wholly owned and managed by Filipinos, and allows only Filipinos and entities at least 70 percent Filipino to engage in the advertising industry, with foreign control limited to their proportionate share in capital, and with only Filipinos as executives and managing officers.
It is important to observe that the Belmonte resolution does not involve any political provisions of the Constitution. Unlike attempts to amend the Charter during past administrations, it has no connection, explicit or implicit, to the term limits of elected officials.
If approved by three-fourths of each house, voting separately, then the proposal would go to a national referendum for approval or rejection by the majority of the electorate. This method of amendment is quite legal, says constitutional expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ (“Charter change,” Opinion, 2/17/2014).
Once the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is put into the said constitutional sections, the actual lifting of the restrictions—the forging of vital details such as which restrictions to lift, in what way, when and in what sequence, through how many legislative bills, etc.—would go into the hands of Congress. The door would be open for ordinary legislation, which should be done carefully and deliberately. It can’t be done overnight, but it would be faster than amending the Constitution piece by piece.
I informed the committee that SWS, as an institution, does not take any position on constitutional amendments. But I disclosed being a founder of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), which last Tuesday told the committee that it favors the resolution. I said that, as an economist, I personally support FEF on this issue, though I don’t agree with it on everything.
Opening up the economy to competitive forces is socially beneficial, not merely by providing more jobs, but also by providing the consuming public with products and services of higher quality, at lower prices. Congress should listen to prospective consumers, too, and not only to the producers already in place, protective of their oligopolistic profit margins.
SWS will, of course, survey public opinion on whatever matter is to be brought to the people in a referendum. All polling groups should work on predicting the result of a referendum, as they do for an election. The way to do it is with the exact phrasing that the electorate will be asked to ratify. To just ask “Do you favor or oppose amending the Constitution?” without clearly stating the amendment would be foolish.
* * *
Contact [email protected].
