Patrimony as a convenient excuse

Constitutional reformers are offended that the enemies of change should use the protection of patrimony as a convenient excuse to block amendments. The inference is that those who want to restructure the body politic to be more effective are ‘unpatriotic’ and the purpose of the amendments is to give away our patrimony. What rubbish. This is not only nonsense but unfair. CCCN (Coalition for Constitutional Change Now) submitted a draft to Congress which deliberately made sure the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution remain. So where is the fairness in an ad-statement based on a lie? Or do the enemies of reform want to keep the status quo come hell or high water?

A big lie. I regret Vice-President Teofisto Guingona, Jr. lends his name to such madness. He signs a statement that attacks reformists for something they never intended nor have done. Full page ads proclaiming it is nationalist to stop constitutional reform by constituent assembly is a blatant lie. Has Vice-President Guingona or the 22 other signatories to the ad even bothered to read the draft that CCCN submitted to Congress for deliberation by both Houses? If they have, I would like them to cite what proposed amendment would give away the country’s patrimony.

The position of reformists. In addition to the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, reformists want to give Parliament the duty to vet projects and investments . to make room for flexibility. The competition for investments is so fierce it would be folly to think that investments will come under hostile policies when there are friendlier developing countries. Investments create jobs in the Philippines so Filipinos can stay home. The migration of Filipinos might earn billions of dollars but at what social cost – divided families, children growing without their parents, workers driven to drugs and crime, cultures alien to Filipinos etc. Is it possible to be both nationalistic and open to particular types of investments? To my mind, it is not only possible but more humane.

Patrimony is not just about land but other intangibles such as use of land for the teeming poor. There are a host of other intangibles of patrimony that contribute to the well-being of its people.Ownership of land is only one of them. Filipinos may own the land but without capital to use the land they are unable to create jobs for kababayans. Focusing on land ownership is a limited and shortsighted view of patrimony. Filipinos are migrating by the millions in search of jobs Telecommunications, to be at par with other, modernizing nations, require billions that Filipino capitalists do not have. If we are to have jobs to our teeming masses especially the young, then we must have the will and the skill to accept foreign investments.

I can mention a few more fields requiring huge capital not coming to the Philippines because of our inadequate policies. The trouble with the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution is that it is not nationalistic enough. The "ultranationalists" close the door to innovation or forging alternate ways to tackle investments. The added clause giving Parliament the job of vetting foreign investments is to manage that inflexibility. It gives more space to business when they search for investments, that in turn creates jobs. But the shift to parliamentary federal was paramount so CCCN decided the economic provisions should stay rather than be used by the enemies to thwart the more urgent amendments.

The meaning of euphemism. A respected critic takes issue with this column for saying the Senate’s vote for convention is a "mere euphemism". He adds, "It can be said also of CONSA’s claim for leaving to open debate the retention of the constitutional provision on national patrimony." I beg to disagree. The two are not the same. A euphemism means using a term other than its real meaning or intention. The Senate’s vote for convention was a mere euphemism for rejecting change, because a senator told me so. He said senators had a pact to fight constitutional change all the way. Why should we vote for our own abolition? We are for convention. That is what I mean by euphemism. In the case of CONSA, economic provisions of 1987 are not being changed nor is it even being singled out for debate.The far more important issue is the shift to parliamentary federal government. There is no euphemism in either proposal. Any amendment must be debated in Congress —ie the Senate and the House. The House has gone ahead but the Senate has refused.They have refused a debate for months so they can claim ‘there is no more time’. One issue is based on facts and the other on presumption tantamount to a lie.

* * *

The heading of the ad reads ‘Patuloy ang ating pagtutol sa Con-ass’.signed by Vice-President Guingona and 22 others. It addresses Pilipinong Makabansa (nationalistic Filipinos) and adds that "ang taumbayang Pilipino, hindi Kongreso and magpapasiya sa likas na yaman ng Pilipinas." First, as I have already mentioned, it is a lie. But worse it insults the intelligence of the public. Of course, only the Filipino people can amend the constitution by ratification. The Constitution empowers Congress to debate and draft amendments for the people’s approval. The people are misled that a right is being taken away from them by Congress.The signatories to the ad are 22 plus Guingona’s is 23 against 187 members of the House and 1.5 million local authority. If you want the truth call or write the Committee on Amendments in Congress headed by Rep. Ed Nachura.

At the heart of their inflexibility is the hundreds of years of dogmatic colonialism. Servitude made Filipinos incapable of new ways of coping . Change requires independence of mind, boldness, courage, virtues not cultivated in colonial rule. We are doomed by inflexibility because it was a tool of colonial conquest.The victims of this historical parody are the masses of poor, the jobless, barred from wellbeing because of antiquated policies. Constitutional reformists are definitely not for giving away our patrimony. Patrimony is not just about land but the strength and well-being of a nation. If government is to serve public interest, it must do more than protect land; it must protect its people.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]