‘Liberty and Prosperity’

There are national fora and there are national fora. In the same way, I suppose, as there are national conferences, and there are national conferences. But to regular attendees of countless of these seemingly endless seminars and conferences, the usefulness of these assemblies is often questionable.

Not so that National Forum on Liberty and Prosperity held under the auspices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines last Thursday and Friday, and it’s not only because yours truly was invited as a panelist on a group denominated "Voices from Affected Constituencies." Our discussion fell under the rubric, "Safeguarding the Liberty of our People."

It was a distinct privilege to be on that panel chaired by Supreme Court Associate Justice Angelina P. Sandoval-Gutierrez. The other panelists were Defense Secretary Nonong Cruz, UP professor Randy David, and Ms. Victoria Tauli Corpuz, chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and executive director of Tebtebba or the Indigenous Peoples’ Centre for Policy, Research and Education. There were, of course, other panels discussing other aspects of the main subject.

Among the stated objectives of the forum were to create "awareness among legislative, executive and judicial officers of government as well as the different sectors of society of the need for Liberty and Prosperity," and to "understand and relate Liberty and Prosperity to the imperatives of government and society."

According to Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, "safeguarding liberty is known to the judiciary, but nurturing prosperity is something new." That proposition is at once interesting and somewhat disconcerting to me. I had sort of assumed that prosperity or economic development was something that all citizens, in whatever profession or endeavor in life, automatically nurtured, for their own self-interest if not for more patriotic motivations.

But there is a difference, apparently, in regarding something as intuitive, and treating it as a conscious commitment and going about fulfilling that commitment in a systematic manner. The assumption too, I take it, is that there is no inherent conflict between safeguarding our liberties and promoting prosperity for the country and individual fellow citizens.

But that is not as easy a proposition as it sounds. Take these very cogent questions posed by the forum organizers, to wit:

How can a balance be achieved between constitutional parameters, state power, economic development, civil and political rights, social and economic rights, and human rights? Is there an issue regarding the nation’s economic interests as against people’s rights?

Further: Is there a lopsided emphasis on political rights and a subordination of economic concerns that needs to be addressed? In spurring economic development, are the poor being harmed? How can we help keep the profile of the marginalized, the poor and the oppressed, in both our political and economic radar screens?

These are, manifestly, complex questions requiring perceptive answers which go beyond formulaic clichés such as "let freedom ring, prosperity will take care of itself." In real life, not always. There may be no inherent conflict between liberty and prosperity, but what if a country is playing catch-up, or is trying for myriad reasons to accelerate its pace of economic development, from a starting point of widespread poverty.

In such a case, the question is often posed: How much freedom is a citizenry prepared to surrender in exchange for a commitment on the part of government to reduce poverty more quickly, deliver essential services such as quality and affordable (if not state-subsidized, meaning free) education and health care, and attract massive foreign investment? This bargain is hardly academic and there could be hell to pay if government fails to deliver on its promises.

If you think this situation, and the resulting question, is too theoretical or speculative and won’t ever happen in this country, guess again. There are enough people in government today who honestly think that we’ve missed the economic opportunity boat once too often and that it’s high time that government is unshackled by too much preoccupation with "rights" and too little attention to our "obligations" as citizens.

To me, this dilemma was brought home by a question from the audience which asked, quite candidly: What good is liberty, if there is no prosperity? Immediately, visions of Singapore and China, among others, sprang to mind, for obvious reasons.

We can put the question another way: Is Speaker Joe de Venecia’s Plan 747 (seven consecutive years of 7 percent annual gross domestic product growth), or the more ambitious Double Ten (ten consecutive years of 10 percent annual GDP growth) idea of some dreamy-eyed economic planners, casting moist eyes at stellar performers in the Asian region, ever going to be achievable in our country.

Well, some look at such current disasters or disasters-in-the-making as Piatco, North Rail, the reclamation area, MRT-7, the extension of the South expressway skyway, electoral computerization, etc. ad nauseam and ask rhetorically, "What the hell do you think?" Naturally, they think they know all the answers and don’t wait for yours.

Of course, they don’t know all the answers. Many, myself included, believe we can achieve rapid economic growth without sacrificing fundamental liberties. There is no historical necessity about the paths China, Singapore or even Malaysia have taken. The Philippines can chart its own path, a path that hews closely to freedoms we hold basic to our very national existence.

It does mean, though, that we have to do things differently. We’ll have to approach building a new international airport, attracting foreign investment in our mining industry and, yes, automating our elections, to name just a few of our very urgent national priorities, in radically new ways.

Next time, we consider some ways suggested by recent Supreme Court decisions. Some of these methods, or legal pathways, I know will not be totally palatable to those who consider the Supreme Court something of an all-around doctor to correct everything that’s wrong about us. But I believe they do present a generally correct balance between the protection of fundamental freedoms and the promotion of prosperity or economic development.

(To be continued)