Undying craving for power

Suspicions about the hidden motivations for the renewed effort to tinker with the Constitution are rife since the excuse of updating the economic provisions is less compelling now with the reforms undertaken under the previous administration.

Previous attempts at Charter change consistently used the excuse of the need to relax the restrictive economic provisions that turn off foreign investors.

The public had been led to believe that without unlocking the Basic Law for amendments, foreign investments would lag compared to the country’s neighbors, and not enough jobs would be generated.

Despite these spellbinding excuses, the efforts never reached the plebiscite stage.

Without fail, whoever was in the Palace, public skepticism was always about the stealthy aim of term extension that would benefit all incumbents.

Even without amending the restrictive provisions, liberalization was achieved, and the economy became more open to foreign capital.

The economy opened up with the amendments to the Public Service Act that removed foreign ownership restrictions in telecommunications, shipping, toll roads, and airports.

Republic Act 11659 made a distinction between a public service and a public utility such that a public utility no longer included telecommunication, shipping, airline, railway, toll road, and transport network vehicle companies.

Before the revision of the law, the cited industries were subjected to the 40-percent limit on foreign ownership. With the changes, foreigners can now fully own corporations in these industries.

The protectionist provisions are now limited to education and media.

Changes made to the Foreign Investment Act removed several industries from the “Foreign Investment Negative List,” or industries in which foreign-owned companies could not invest. Startups, small business enablers, and enterprises with advanced technology can now have 100 percent foreign ownership.

Also, in January 2022, the Retail Trade Liberalization Act was amended to allow foreign retailers a lower paid-up capital of P25 million against more than P100 million previously.

Experts believe loosening ownership restrictions is not a necessary condition for economic growth.

Foreigners also remain barred from owning land, exploiting natural resources, owning advertising businesses, and practicing professions such as medicine and law.

Joint Resolution 6 of Congress seeks to ensure that only the limiting economic provisions would be amended.

The route remains through a Constituent Assembly in which Congress will vote on the proposed changes.

However, provisions for the mode of Cha-cha in the Constitution could be clearer as to whether Congress shall convene as a single body or the Senate and the House shall vote separately.

Thus, in the People’s Initiative — another Cha-cha mode — launched recently, among the amendments sought is clear wording stating that both chambers shall vote as one body for Cha-cha.

The widespread suspicion, however, is that the Cha-cha proponents will push for a shift to a parliamentary form of government under a federal system.

Once Congress opens the Constitution for changes, there is no guarantee that the revisions will be confined to the economic provisions.

Such fears have pervaded every attempt to introduce even the slightest amendment to the Charter.

The Cha-cha debate always goes back to the issue of term perpetuation, which is always valid considering the undying lust for power of the majority of those in Congress.