We often hear the proponents of changing the 1987 Constitution arguing that it’s an urgent one so we can attract more foreign investments.
They point to the provision that limits foreign firms to only 40 percent of investments in the country, with 60 percent reserved for Filipino citizens or corporations.
Why not open up parts of the economy to full or 100 percent ownership by foreigners? This restriction, they insist, is the reason why our neighbors in Southeast Asia and other developing countries have been overtaking us in economic development.
The argument has its merits, to be sure.
But as shown by recent experience, we do not have to revise the entire Constitution to get rid of its restrictive economic provisions.
How? By simply enacting laws that will allow foreigners to own even 100 percent of certain sectors, such as transportation.
So why is there an apparent effort to revive the Charter change proposal, whether through a constitutional assembly or a constitutional convention, despite President Marcos Jr.’s clear pronouncement that he does not consider revising the Constitution at this time to get rid of its restrictive economic provisions?
It appears that some of those pushing Charter change are motivated not solely by their ardent desire to change its economic provisions but its political provisions as well.
The main proponent of Charter change in the House of Representatives has conceded there is no guarantee that either a Constitutional Convention (Con-con) or a Constitutional Assembly (Con-ass) would focus its attention on changing the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
House committee on Constitutional amendments chair and Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez acknowledged there was a “big possibility” that political provisions, including those pertaining to term limits of elected officials and the ban on political dynasties, could be discussed by the proposed Con-con that would include both elected and appointed delegates.
For Rodriguez, the current Cha-cha initiative was propelled by the “compelling” reason the House “cannot turn its back from the truth that the 1987 Constitution needs to be reviewed for it is the third most restrictive in the world and the most restrictive in the ASEAN…It is high time to liberalize such restrictions to encourage the free flow of capital in the country and pave the way for global competitiveness.”
“Constituent power” is how Rodriguez describes the possibility that Charter change is likely to meander well beyond economic reforms toward political amendments, such as term extensions and junking the constitutional ban on political dynasties.
But just how far would that go? And would that be good for poverty alleviation and a robust democracy?
