Carlo's Think Pieces

Reflections of a Filipino in the Netherlands

Charter Change Debate?

Posted by butalidnl on 22 October 2006

The more I try to understand the so-called Philippine charter change debate, the more I realize that it is not a debate at all. The two sides are not talking about the same things, so there is no way of really weighing one side against the other. According to the pro charter change side, the shift to the unicameral-parliamentary system would streamline government, spur development, and make the country overcome corruption. The opponents of charter change point out to the so-called transitory provisions which provide for a concentration of power in the present president, the automatic extension of the terms of elected officials till 2010 (when many terms would have expired in 2007), and the concentration of power on the present legislators from the Senate and the House of Representatives.

On what, at first glance, is a side issue, there seems to at least be two sides. This is the issue of the national patrimony provisions. The charter change proposals of the House of Representatives and that of the Consultative Commission (ConCom) clearly want to open up ownership of land, natural resources, public utilities and mass media to foreigners, because according to them, this will result in national development etc. And of course, the opponents of charter change are saying that this will complete the sell-off of our national patrimony to foreigners, and that these steps will not result in economic gains for the country.

This clash on the issue of national patrimony is, in a sense, overblown. After all, hasn’t the present government already found ways to circumvent constitutional restrictions in order to get foreigners to operate and lease utilities and mining concessions? The thing that is now limiting the entry of foreign mining companies in the Philippines is the opposition from the Catholic church hierarchy, and not the Constitution. And I very much doubt whether opening up what little is still closed to foreign investment would spur economic development.

Thus, we are now saddled with a charter change non-debate.

And then, there is the more interesting (from the spectator’s point of view, that is) struggle regarding the technicalities of how to change the constitution. The House of Representatives is trying to push the point of a 2/3 vote as meaning 2/3 of the total members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, even if these legislators are all from the House of Representatives. This is a creative interpretation, and will be unique in the world – anywhere where the legislature has two chambers, they are required to get the required majority votes separately, unless the law specifically says that they should sit jointly for certain decisions. The House is trying to do everything to push their creative interpretation of the 2/3 vote requirement; but this will clearly get nowhere.

And the so-called peoples initiative is also getting stranded in a lot of legalese. It seems like it is anything but a peoples initiative, with all the government bodies tinkering with the process. It will indeed be a surprise if the Supreme Court accepts the Sigaw ng Bayan etc initiative as valid.

The charter change issue is clearly getting nowhere. But what can we conclude from all this?
First of all, it really seems like the whole charter change issue or debate is one giant smokescreen (or red herring, if one prefers that analogy). With both the content and the procedure going nowhere, why on earth is the government still pushing it? As long as all eyes are on the charter change issue, other issues including that of the Garci-tapes scandal become less prominent in the public eye. Also, legislators are less prone to be anti-charter change or anti-GMA because they have everything to gain if charter change “transitory provisions” are implemented.

The second conclusion that one could draw from the current charter change issue is that there seems to be a consensus that there is something wrong with the Philippine political system, and that it needs some radical changes. While many people don’t agree with the currently proposed set of amendments to the Constitution; a lot of these people are in favor of some changes, at least if these would help get rid of the corrupt and inept politicians currently running the country.
It is a pity that this underlying base of support for fundamental political change is being used by both sides in order to push their various short-term aims. What we need now is a call for genuine discussions on how best to design a political system that fits the Philippines today.
What we need now is a real debate on charter change.

21 Responses to “Charter Change Debate?”

  1. ceasar said

    I just want change. im already 28 years old but still our country are in lower status of living. What we want, better life, at this time do we have good life, no no and nothing will change from this day until the next generation still the same , our life always poor. If we will not try, nothing will change to your life. You want change, SACRIFICE! DONT THINK SO MUCH, JUST HAVE FAITH. Dont listen to those elite classes, decide for yourself.

    Other politician oppose because there will be no elections on 2010, that is why they are afraid of charter change. Polician is a politician, they want to rule, be in position.

    People of the Philippines, im just a simple guy, telling you take a look of the history of our country. We change the president, new president elected but still no change. No need to yearly change of president, the law must be change.

    My taiwanese director said “along time ago Philippines economy is much better and very popular, he said during Marcos era. But this time its no good, and i said why. Your Country is too much free, no control of his people.

    ****
    Im sorry this is what i observed.

    That is why I want to have strict government. To control its people, to control the attitude of people, to control the economy.

    CHANGE IS BETTER.

  2. Kakit said

    people of the Philippine, politicians… im sorry,, i am a pro cha cha!!! I think, this is the best way to help us poor filipinos to have a better life.. to have a chance to taste that life is not that cruel at all.!!!
    I have observed as a college student… POOR became poorer… RICH became richer!!! the gap between the poor and the rich is getting far!!!
    I WANT CHANGE!!!

  3. laarni said

    If we are to favor chacha, how sure we are of the CHANGES you guys are hoping for? Change is even temporary. Changing the constitution is not as simple as eating peanuts. Technically speaking, money, energy, time, effort are considered.

    • michelle said

      your right that it is not easy to change our constitution. so how sure they are that our country will improved people should make a change to their selves first to serve as the mirror of society!!!

  4. jeremiah baldemor said

    i wonder why until now the spirit of charter change stay alive,if gloria was inspired by russia prime minister well she has no guts for that you spoiled brat daughter of former president is very unlike or diferent to pioneering my vladimir putin of russssssia
    if your generals are acting like a kgb agent sorry its dream i just laughed every time i see sec ermita he pretended as if he was james bond or secret agent every time he was doing his announcement,
    where is fidel ramos i understandhe settled in writing nice his former protege ermita gone wild hehe the president is asking for extension im sure that is the merit of charter change but people too are stupid ,why we allow this to happen why not ask the president to leave the office instead, my advice for gma its impossible to cheat time wheher you like it or not even if you succeed in your term time will come you cannot be forever leader to us such move will just agravate your accountability assuming you extend your term how long you will be stronger can you give guarantee that your successor is your son im sorry dont prolong your agony in malacanang 2010 is enough for you dont make gamble
    im sure even military generals would not abide to you after 2010even you extend your term ,imagine marcos was powerful than you are that time ,he started serving us in good manner he overwhelmingly defeated your father in honest way but you i am not wodering how you handle us because at first you stole power then next yo cheated us if noli coveted your position im sure you were ousted ,also you are lucky this time we lack vigilant and charismaticleader if only fernando poe is alive im sure he will regain our trust to him and endthis mess sumasakit na tiyan ko

  5. jeremiah baldemor said

    let me take this moment for awhile ,i have my privelege to ask the
    people of the country who is the third highest man in the country no lesss than the senate president ,where is logic if in the constitution the procedure to amend the law is 3/4 part of both senate and congress,require if that happened or if that is true then its now time to say that the third highest in the government is the speaker because if that is the reality then it means that upon the creation of 1987 constitution the senate has an expiry date while the congressis forever so i want to corrct the arrogance of lower congresss that 3/4 for each branch is require ,because in constitution both congress are respected as co equal branch its unwise to say that constitutionalist failed in that part ,i dont see any gray area or resrve thinking thats why impeachment case from lower needs 2/3 to elevate it to senate then in order to expulse the president 3/4 of the senate are required to remove the executive powerof the president for me congress was wrong in their interprtation or niloloko lang tayo i know constitution was made not for arrrogance of congress walang masama magpatuloy sa poder basta sa katotohanan lang kung ayw sa iyo ng tao pag bigyan ang iba si erap nga sinipa rin sabagay kasalanan nya to

  6. jeremiah baldemor said

    sana mag isip na si arroyo pasalamatan nya at nakaraos din siya
    sa mga bishops na ayaw makinig sa atin bahala sila siguro may karapatan dion sila pero sana si mike velrde bro. erano manalo at
    bro eddie villanueva magkaisa na kayo at hikayatin nyo po si ginang arroyo na gumawa ng tama hindi na kami umaasa sa simbahan ng pagbabago kayo na lang po ang tumugon sa mga obligasyon na naiwan ng namayapa na si cardinal sin

  7. jeremiah baldemor said

    sumusobra na mga linta ay lintik na yan yang si jdv
    di ba xa ang ugat ng kapalpakakan buti nga sa kanya tuklawin sya ng alaga niya di ba siya ang nagturo kung paano paamuhin ang awlang prinsipyong mga kongresman sa tuwing may mpeachment kay sorry siya para sya kumuha ng bato at pinukpok sarili niya kaya mga obispo hwag kayo magbulag bulagan
    na kunwa wala pakialam hwag naman sana kumubli sa health reproductive

  8. jeremiah baldemor said

    sour graping yan si jdv actually political survival lang yan dapat sumpain niya sarili niya dahil bangungot ang pangulo arroyo sa ala ala namin dapat mag alsa tayo sa 2010 ang botohan natin ay wala
    sas mg oposisyon ano kaya kung si gov panlilio gayahin natin si barrack obama,o kaya si chiz escudero
    basta ag lang siya pagamit kay danding teka gma nalimutan na pala ang coco levy na para sa maniniyog oy ng kongresman mas malaki ito kaysa sa bolante senado dapat hanapin ninyo mga pera ng maniniyog ,pag nakabasa kayo ng mensaheko an dapat sia iaip natin tuloy 2o10 at iboto ang sino man na mgbibigay ng hustiya sa pang aalipusta ng pangulo si dick gordon ,bayani fernando si belmonte ast sec teodoro mga tuta yan saka si noli mga galamay yan pero tiyak legarda ,escudero villar at lacson lalo na si erap hustiya pagbaabyarin nila iyon

  9. stop charter change,we need to change the government officials,not the type of governance.the problems are the Government officials who are corrupt enough.gma must stop making annomalies,the constitution states that”the right to make unions and decisions of the government are within the senate and the congress,but, sad to say,that the president had given the autority only to the congress in implementing charter change for almost the oficials under the congress is in the hand of her.therefore,gma violates the constitution and must be a subect to jail.stop her!..she is trying to implement charter change not for the development of our country but,for extending her term to earn more properties and to grab the money of the people.a female president is a cursed.wake up!filipinos.fight for our rights.

  10. XYRUS ALBERT CURITANA said

    i am a pro-cha cha.because for me this is the time to have a change.some of the people are saying that the cha cha will extend the term of president arroyo which is not true because in the parliament system if you don’t want the system or government of the prime ministe pwede mo syang tangalin within 6 months ng kanyang panunungkulan. and those who are anti cha-cha people try to think, matagal nang isinusulong ang charter change but lagi kayong kumokontra ng hindi nyo pinag iisipan kung ano yung pinaglalaban nyo.so what kung manirahan yung mga foreigner here in the philippines maganda nga yun kasi dadami ang dollars na papasok sa philippines.another thing is ayaw nyo na pumasok at magkaroon ng base militar dito.bakit kaya ba nating lumaban sa mga terorista?matututlungan pa nila tayo kung pano protektahan ang ating bansa. at ispin nyo kaya ayaw ng ibang politicians ng cha-cha kasi mawawala sila sa katungkulan dahil ang totoo sarili lng nila ang iniisip nla at hindi ang pang buong bansa..

    im sorry but ito sa tingin ko ang mga dahilan…

    TRY TO THINK.

  11. clark kent said

    sana huwag ng ipatuloy ang charter change sa bansa kasi yun kasi nagbibigay problema sa lahat

  12. we need to change the constitution! marami pa ang hindi nagbabago sa ating bansa at lalong hindi pa ito uunlad kung patuloy pa ring sinusunod ang 1987 Constitution.Iba na kasi ngayon ang buhay kumpara noon. Palaki na ng palaki ang populasyon sa kasalukuyan na naging sanhi ng maraming problema sa pamahalaan at hindi ito masolusyunan kung hindi pa pinalitan ang 1987 Costitution.Kailangan na natin ng pagbabago para sa ikauunlad ng ating bansa.

  13. michelle said

    thanks sa lahat ng nag post ng comment kailangan ko lang talaga kasi ito para sa debate namin kung dapat bang mag karoon ng cha cha and we are anti.

  14. Michelle B. Balaba said

    according to Dr Mohammed Mahthir”A society wanting to develop at a speed parallel to the expectations of the people requires a leadership driven by a vision of a strong and prosperous tomorrow”, so meaning that the very essence of unity requires that the people as well as the their leader must have discipline, self-restrait and maturity to accord the constitution a quantum of obedience and respect.

  15. Mark said

    It’s not a surprise that charter change is not Aquino’s priority, says Palace. Come to think of it, does Noynoy Aquino have any worthwhile priorities at all? He didn’t have any priorities as a Congressman, he did’t have any priorities as a Senator, he didn’t have priorities as a candidate, he’s still not showing priorities as President.

    “Nobody has presented an argument that validates Cha-cha is urgent and that not doing so will place the country at risk,” she told reporters.”>

    Cha-cha is not urgent? Really?

    Talk about the sense of timing in the Philippines. It will be an insult to snails to say that change takes place at a snail’s pace in the Philippines – glacial is more like it. Defects in constitution’s economic provisions – specifically the 60/40 provisions have long been cited as one of the key reasons for charter change in previous administrations. From Ramos, to Estrada, to Arroyo – more than a decade of clamor for constitutional reform AND being left in the dust by neighboring liberal ASEAN economies – we still don’t have a sense of urgency. Yeah, right.

    Why am I not surprised? Since when has anything been done with urgency in the Philippines. When the typical attitude is “bahala na”, “pwede pa”, “bukas na”, “mamaya na”, “baka swertihin tayo” – there will be no sense of urgency. As below, so it is above.

    Not changing the Charter will not place the country at risk?

    Hold your horses Mister Aquino. Whose country are you talking about here? Are you talking about your imaginary extended hacienda? A country isn’t just about government – it’s about people. Every day we put off charter change is another day when a Filipino will take the risk of going overseas. It is another day that can break families apart. It is another day when our women can wind up wind in the dens of human traffickers.

    Think about it – due to lack of economic opportunities we had to do an about face on our foreign policy in order to save the neck of an OFW. If the opportunities were available at home, the Pinoys wouldn’t be in Iraq thereby putting our foreign policy and our international goodwill and standing (what’s left of it anyway) at risk. Isn’t that risk enough?

    It is another day when a Filipino will decide to squat, steal, bribe, take a cut of, scheme – and all for what? For lack of economic opportunities – government assets and policies become highly vulnerable to vested interests. Isn’t that risk enough?

    Changing the Charter does not guarantee anything? Really?

    True that – changing the charter does not guarantee anything. But not reforming the constitution, also guarantees a lot of things – the restrictive 60/40 economic policies will cause the Philippines to get crumbs while the rest of its more liberal neighbors get the lions share. It also guarantees that there will be more Filipinos going overseas due to the lack of jobs at home. It also guarantees that the Lopezes, Ayalas, Cojuangcos and the entire Philippine oligarchy’s protectionist chokehold on the Philippine economy will generate revenues at a very big expense to Filipino consumers.

    Even now as we speak, Globe, PLDT and the telecomm cartel are lobbying for the imposition of broadband caps. I don’t mind if the local Filipino telecomms impose caps PROVIDED there are other telecomm companies that don’t impose caps. In effect, the Philippine government is now rewardng the inefficiency of the Ayala and Lopez telecomm companies. Heck, Aquino just awarded a contract to Globe involving the use of the CCT. SLEX and NLEX fees have increased – three digit increases. Power rates are also increasing. OFW remittances which are spent on consumer items wind up in Shoemart or Ayala condos. The oligarchs remain in control – that’s what we are guaranteeing by keeping the current Charter.

    RH Bill is more important than charter change? Really?

    The driving force behind the RH bill still boils down to economics – controlling the number of people who will have to share scarce resources. In the entire scheme of things that address economic realities, the impact of the RH bill pales in comparison to the impact of liberalization – and the corresponding affluent lifestyles that go with it.

    The flip side to this RH equation therefore is not to limit the solutioneering to a palliative. Rather, we should address the opportunities to create a bigger pie – to create wealth, to generate more value so that there will be more that can be shared while managing population growth. Charter change therefore, complements the RH bill on a whole range of economic issues – more competition for procurement and distribution of supplies for instance.

    Misguided Populist Positions

    The Inquirer quotes Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares as saying that “the poverty and injustice plaguing the country did not stem from the Constitution but rather from the corruption and abuses of public officials, the mismanagement of the economy and the failure to investigate and prosecute those who violated laws”.

    Corruption, economic mismanagement of government agencies, failure to investigate and prosecute by government are but symptoms of a bigger systemic flaw – the flawed restrictive 60/40 provisions which gives rise to a market controlled by local monopolies. In turn, these local monopolies or vested interests work with the political elite to craft legislation that protects local business interests with prejudice to local consumers – leading to an inefficient market. In such a situation, introducing competition becomes more paramount. How ironic when the local companies themselves have been behaving like barbarians, even worse – teaching foreign investors how to break Philippine laws.

    Why zero in on the 60/40?

    For one simple reason – opportunity cost.

    Opportunity cost is the cost related to the next-best choice available to someone who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices.[1] It is a key concept in economics. It has been described as expressing “the basic relationship between scarcity and choice.”[2] The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently.[3] Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs

    Wikipedia.

    Investors have a choice of countries where they can invest. For short, the Philippines is not the center of the investors universe. Hate to burst your bubble but Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam are supernovas compared to the Philippine dwarf.

    Allow me to break it down – what exactly are we missing by keeping the 60/40 provisions.

    1 – Not all companies are willing to go into a joint venture.

    2 – For the companies willing to go into a joint venture, not all are willing to be minority partners.

    The standard reply of government functionaries has been that – if it’s not 60/40 it’s not for us? Huh? Why not? “Just because” isn’t good enough reason anymore. The empirical evidence for liberalization is overwhelming and the longer we tarry, the greater our loss. Time therefore is of the essence – it may not be urgent to the Aquino presidency – but it certainly it is urgent to the Philippine economy.

    The color of money is green. Opportunities to create a paycheck or a stock certificate – that allows Filipinos to stay in the Philippines, meet their needs to be productive and add value to an orderly, vibrant and prosperous society should be encouraged. Investors and businesses – local or foreign who provide a valuable service to Filipino customers and job seekers should be given a free hand to help build the Philippines. Remove the 60/40 constitutional restrictions – a fair market is a free market.

    What can be done by advocates of constitutional reform?

    At this stage in the process, there are a couple of things that can be done.

    Networking

    For instance, forging alliances with Sens Escudero, Angara, and Enrile might help create more awareness and urgency. Note their positions on constitutional reform.

    Restrictive provisions

    Other senators, however, maintained their openness to amending the Constitution, specifically its “restrictive” economic provisions.

    Sen. Francis Escudero, the chair of the committee on constitutional amendments, asked the lawmakers to specify and clarify their amendments to which provisions of the Constitution.

    “If at all, it can only be done in the first two years of this new government,” he said in a text message, but did not elaborate.

    Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Eduardo Angara reiterated that the provision that key industries should be 60-percent owned by Filipino was restrictive and should be amended.

    “I’m a constant believer in Charter change. We are handcuffed literally by the rigidity of the Constitution,” Angara said in an interview.

    Enrile said over radio dwIZ: “It’s about time we revise these policies.”

    In the House of Representatives, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said Mr. Aquino’s declaration not to seek any public office in 2016 would further boost the people’s trust in him to undertake sweeping reforms, including Charter change.

    “But not this year,” Belmonte said as he expected the committee on constitutional amendments to take a closer look at the renewed interest in Charter change.

    “The President’s (disinterest in the issue) is good for Cha-cha. People will be more confident. But we have to study it first,” Belmonte said at the Kapihan sa Diamond Hotel breakfast forum in Quezon City Monday morning.

    Keep on Spreading the Word

    Working for constitutional reform is not a 100 meter dash, rather, it’s a marathon. We have a long way to go – let’s get started early, be an early bird that catches the proverbial worm.

    The cost of retaining the current constitution’s restrictive economic provisions is wreaking havoc on our families, our foreign policy, our national and personal economies.

    It is time to correct a wrong – It is time to say enough. And 2011, is a good time as any, to start taking control of our lives, our economy, our constitution, our government, our choices, our freedom, OUR Philippines.

    by BongV….antipinoy.com

  16. Mark said

    There are no ifs and no buts about this. Constitutional Reform must happen now. It should have happened long ago. The information and all the data is out there. Must we continue to allow the Philippines to be “Asia’s Basketcase of Wasted Democrazy?”

    Perhaps it is time we asked ourselves and our close friends & relatives all the following questions to get all Filipinos thinking more and more about what’s wrong with the Philippine situation and what needs to be done to CoRRECT™ it:

    1. ECONOMY:

    Why are so many Filipinos poor?

    Why are jobs so scarce?

    Why are local salaries so low?

    Why do so many Filipinos have to find work abroad?

    Why are there so many unemployed and underemployed people?

    Why did Intel leave the Philippines to move to Vietnam?

    Why did Canon choose to set up factories in Vietnam and not in the Philippines?

    Why do we have difficulty bringing in foreign investors in when our use of English is cited by these same investors as a major advantage?

    Think carefully about all these questions and go to the root of all our “policy documents” that cause our problems and prevent our progress
    2. TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATION:

    Why are most well-paying jobs in Imperial Manila forcing provincial residents to have to come to the capital for work, creating over-congestion, squatters, and too many traffic jams in the capital?

    Why is it that if you want to watch Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber their concerts are only in Imperial Manila? Why not other cities?

    Why is it that if you want to watch a classical concert, it must be in Imperial Manila?

    Why is it that what Imperial Manila says goes even if it is oftentimes not appropriate to the culture, language, or unique situation of the different people from the various regions?

    What requirement did the MILF tell the Government of the Republic of the Philippines it needed to see happen for the MILF to lay down their arms and bring about Peace in Mindanao?

    Why is it that far too many Overseas Filipino Workers are Filipinos who are originally from outside of Imperial Manila?

    3. SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT:

    Why does our political system cause only celebrities to have the upper hand, and in case a politician wants to win, he/she needs to do what celebrities do (song-and-dance numbers)?

    Why is it so difficult for highly intelligent and highly competent experts to emerge at the top of the leadership of Philippine Government?

    Why do we end up with mediocre-quality leadership? And sometimes, even if the leadership is good, why is it so hard for the leaders to do what needs to be done?

    Why is the Philippine government so prone to grid-lock?

    Why is the Philippine system so prone to coups d’état and other destabilizing moves?

    Why is it so difficult to get rid of incompetent leaders or leaders who did not deliver on their promises?

    All these questions inevitably lead to the conclusion that the 1987 Constitution has given the Philippines an extremely dysfunctional environment, forcing Filipinos who want a better future for themselves and their loved ones to emigrate to greener pastures. Now that we all see that the 1987 Constitution is flawed, what do we do about it?

    Must we wait until the Philippines is decisively overtaken by Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, East Timor, and Myanmar so that we find ourselves at the absolute bottom of the list of all Southeast Asian countries before we even start fixing our flawed Constitution? Will waiting another decade or so when Filipinos will have reached around 120 million people make any sense?

    We need Constitutional Reform & Rectification for Economic Competitiveness & Transformation now!

    http://antipinoy.com/basketcase/

  17. butalidnl said

    I disagree with your idea that the Constitution’s national patrimony provision should be amended to allow foreign investors. I think that they don’t really have much they could help, even with so called ownership rights. What is more needed is to mobilize the full potential of Overseas Filipinos. There should be a law (or a constitutional provision) that says that all Overseas Filipino investments will be considered to be 100% Filipino investments. This will free OFs with other passports to fully invest in phils, especially in the sectors restricted to phil. ownership only – things from media to grocery stores. I am sure this will effectively double inflows from OFs, and will really help the country.
    As for foreigners, what we need from them is technology and access to their markets, not money. If Filipinos work together to get the technology and market access that we need, we will progress. Actually, there is really no shortage of capital in the Philippines. But since the investment climate is not good, people would rather invest in not-so-productive activities like real estate, or even stash their money abroad. The changes needed to make the philippine invest environment favorable are not constitutional, but they need determined govt action to put in place….

    • Mark said

      I disagree. Why do you limit your investment just Filipino? There still not enough overseas Filipino that can handle big ticket infrastructure investment in the Philippines. Haven’t we learn anything from history? The Philippine is the only country who has the 60-40 provision in their constitution. It does not benefit the people it only protect the Filipino firm in the Philippines who are getting richer and richer. Other countries such as Vietnam, a country that is slightly behind us economically is gaining fast because of the influx of billions of dollars of foreign investment. Because of this 60-40 restriction, the Philippines received the lowest amount of investment compared to the other neighboring countries. Why do you think Singapore became a 1st world country from a 3rd world country? because they opened up their economy from foreign ownership led by LKY. So what if foreigners own land or businesses in the Philippines? Its could be better. From my experience they provide good customer service and they pay more compared to a Filipino owned firm.

      Many nurses who currently work in the hospital resigned and end up working in a foreign owned BPO center. Why? because the average nurse working in a Filipino owned hospital only earned an average P10,000 per month versus P22,000 per month by picking up the phone being a call agent.

      I SUGGEST YOU TRY AND READ AND LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR 1987 CONSTITUTION REGARDING THE 60-40 PROVISION.

      http://www.investphilippines.info/arangkada/home.php

      • butalidnl said

        More countries have laws limiting foreign ownership of their companies. The US for instance restricts industries like airlines and steel to be majority owned by Americans. And of course there are national competition authorities that restrict foreign ownership. Remember the plan of Dubai Ports to buy US ports? or a chinese oil company trying to buy a small US oil company? By the way, Singapore was always a first-world country, just like Hong Kong. Easy to develop if you’re only one small city. More difficult to develop when you have a big country with agricultural countryside.

  18. Jason Cerbas said

    For me, Our country really needs change not just in our constitution but also the government officials but those changes really can be started not by changing our country’s president and officials but by Charter change. I think it will be the stepping stone of our country to start all over again and be more strict on implementing laws.

    – Jason John P. Cerbas

    Contributor:
    http://ourhappyschool.com/debate

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: