Oh, no, not again!

There are two issues being lumped together on the issue of removing constitutional barriers for foreign investments — one is the amendment itself and the other is President Aquino III.  On the first, I think there should be no dispute we need foreign investments. Those who object to it are local, selfish oligarchs who don’t want competition.

On the second, the election of  Benigno Aquino III has been under a cloud for many thinking people.

 The 2010 and 2013 elections were fraught with anomalies and unanswered questions. To them, we must have a better system of politics and government so that such an unqualified candidate should become the president of the Philippines.

I don’t think I am alone in wanting to have a fairer system, one that will allow a working meritocracy.

Even without the help of Smartmatic PCOS I think it is time we are able to elect competent leaders with a vision. (And I don’t mean running after high GDPs and ratings from credit agencies.) That is not what a government is for in a country like the Philippines with millions of poor and visited by tragedies like Haiyan. We will not get better candidates under our unique presidential system. No wonder US President McKinley told President Quezon while it was being debated whether we would have a parliamentary or a presidential system. His answer conveyed to President Quezon was no presidential system, no independence.

* * *

For years now every time we were close to changing the 1987 Cory Constitution, a favorite excuse was the incumbent President might use it to extend his term whoever it was – FVR, GMA. Erap did not even bother to make a serious attempt. He knew his limitations.  He stuck to economic provisions “for the poor.”

If you ask me, the task is to get the first one done if it can be done as congressional leaders have promised more than two years ago.  How do we know that the oligarchs are not also using the Aquino ploy to stop the amendment through the lawmaking process? We don’t know. What we do know is that such a removal of the barriers to direct foreign investments will be good for the country.

* * *

The dangers of removing term limits or giving transition powers to the incumbent President must be tackled separately. We will need a separate strategy for this unwelcome development if it should come to pass. But we should not stop a good thing just because it could be used for something bad. I quote once again Voltaire, “we must not let the perfect come in the way of the good. “ We take it a step at a time. So yes, amend the economic provisions in the Constitution through the process of lawmaking if it can be done.

* * *

On the issue of whether the President will use it for his own benefit, ie extending his term, it will be up to us thinking Filipinos to devise a counter strategy to make sure that an abusive government whose election is under question get away with its shenanigans. Despite the current Senate investigations and a parade of whistle blowers, people doubt that this will amount to anything like a conviction and this refers to both the PDAF and the DAP under the baton of President Aquino.

What is frightening is if this issue becomes a tinderbox that can drive people finally to take more drastic steps. And if there are rumors that President Aquino will use the congressional move to extend his term there are also rumors that counter moves are being readied not just by the “political” opposition but the Filipino public at large who will fight back  if they are pushed to the wall. When the time comes, the Church and the military will have to join forces to help in the effort.

* * *

It is not quite true that only a few meetings were held before the resolution on removing restrictive economic provisions was passed and ready for the plenary debate. This is not the first time that the resolution was discussed. If you ask me I think it has been discussed to kingdom come at other times and places. It is long overdue.

In one of those meetings that University of Asia & the Pacific organized, I remember, a foreign businessman saying that restrictions can be imposed through legislation. But putting constitutional barriers is hostile policy. It says we do not want foreign investments but if other countries welcome them why should they bother to come here?

* * *

Having said all that, the move to amend provisions in the 1987 Constitution through the lawmaking route remains unsatisfactory. There  is still much to change in the Constitution apart from economic provisions, like switching to a parliamentary federal government. Once I was interviewed by an academic who  asked why constitutional reform has not been possible.

Why was it done in 1986 and never again since then. The first question was easy enough to answer, the second more difficult.

In theory, if we simply follow the Constitution this could be done in three ways — a constituent assembly, a constitutional convention or a people’s initiative. But that is only in theory. In practice it is close to impossible to implement Charter change through any of the three.

The reason is politics. And politics, as one political analyst wrote, is anything but simple. Politics is a maze of conflicting interests. And it isn’t a reality one can disentangle the knots because it is the very nature of politics. The only way one can break through the barriers democratically is to act and act boldly after all protagonists have had their say. Anything short of action is bound to be a stalemate sanctioned by theory and righteousness.

What is less talked about is that a stalemate favors the status quo. And that has been the situation since 1986. The stakeholders of the status quo need only raise their voices and the reformers wilt into the background, often shamed and berated as politically motivated as if those against were not themselves politically motivated.