The Konstitusyon Podcast with Dindo Donato of TanDem

 

Questions and Answers on Constitutional Reform

Questions and answers on Constitutional Reform

General questions about changing the constitution:

1. Why is there a need to change the constitution? 

There’s a need to change the constitution because our problems are not only about how the laws are implemented. They are also about how the laws are made. This includes the constitution, the highest law of the land.

2. Why not just pass new laws if there are changes in our country we want implemented?

Laws will not be enough because the gravest problems in legal system come from the constitution itself. These problems are not only economic, but also political and social.

3. What are the major changes included in the People’s Draft? 

The major changes include the following: to open the economy to foreign business, otherwise closed for local business only; to shift from “one-man rule” to “collegial rule;” to shift from “voting at large” to “voting by district;” to establish regional centers of government; to equally promote the tri-people for unity in diversity. At the local level, voting will be by single-member subdistricts. By tri-people, I refer to the Christians, Muslims and Indigenous Peoples.

About parliamentary system:

4. Why do you want to have a parliamentary system of government? Why what’s wrong with a Presidential system?

The presidential system is basically one-man rule. A single popular individual, not necessarily supported by majority of the people, controls the entire executive branch of government. On the other hand, the parliamentary system is based on majority rule, through a college or group of people’s representatives voted in multiple small districts nationwide. 

5. Isn’t the USA a Presidential system, yet they are the biggest economy in the world?

The US system is not purely presidential. The president himself is voted like the prime minister, through a body of representatives elected in multiple small districts nationwide. The US system is also founded on a network of components state, each one with capability to be a country by itself. Thus, the US experience does not apply to us.

6. How do you answer the fact the Marcos created a parliamentary system and it did not turn out too well for the country?

Mr. Marcos did not create a parliamentary system. The 1973 constitution was a semi-parliamentary (or semi-presidential) system. It had an independent chief executive, and a cabinet dominated by members of parliament (or Batasan). More importantly, the 1973 constitution was not fully implemented, particularly the succession provisions for president. Instead, we had the 1976 amendments allowing Mr. Marcos to rule indefinitely w/o term limits. It also gave him legislative powers side-by-side the parliament (or Batasan). With the 1976 amendments, the system became a supra presidential system.

7. How can we assure that we will not end up with a dictatorship when we have a parliamentary system?

A parliamentary system can work better than a presidential system to prevent a dictatorship, because the former is based on collegial rule, while the latter is actually already one-man rule.

8. In a parliamentary system, it is like that it is congress sets the agenda for the country. Why do you trust congressmen too much when we think we cannot trust them?

Yes, it is the congress of people’s representatives elected nationwide, that controls the agenda of the country. That is much better than one person, who does not necessarily have majority support, controlling the national agenda. Moreover, congressmen elected from multiple small districts, are better known to their constituents, compared to the president, vice-president and senators elected nationwide at large, whom the voters know only through mass media.

Under the People’s Draft, to promote political democracy, a similar selection process is adopted at the local level. Councilors will be elected from multiple small single-member subdistricts, where candidates are better known to the voters.

9. People suspect that congress would want this to perpetuate their terms, what do you say to this?

I have not seen any proposal from congress to provide for extended terms without need for elections. Anyway, to prevent this, our group of advocates came up its own crowd-sourced constitution called the People’s Draft, to clearly and strongly prohibit any extension of terms without elections.

10. Which countries are successful under a parliamentary system?

We have the United Kingdom and Japan, from both the West and the East. Closer to home we have Malaysia and Thailand.

11. What do you say to the idea that people will lose their capability to vote for their leader directly for president?

That idea is wrong. We simply need to follow the way US elections for electoral college are done. The ballots will indicate not only the candidates for the district, but also the nominee for the president. The voters then can choose who to vote for. 

In the People’s Draft, a similar voting process is adopted at the local level. Here the ballots will indicate not only the candidates for the single-member subdistrict, but also the nominee for the mayor. 

12. By the way, in your draft, how do you call the leader of the country? President? Doesn’t it make it presidential?

In the People’s Draft, the chief executive is called president, because this is the term understood by the people for the top executive post. Anyway, Congress may change the job title later.

13. If there is a popular personality who wants to become president, what is the steps he or she should take? Can he/she be President?

Under the People’s Draft, this popular personality should join or form a political party with a national constituency, because the parliamentary system is based on collegial rule, rather than by one-man rule. Here, it is a college or group of political personalities, acting together as one, that takes ultimate control of the government.

About terms and term limits:

14. In the people’s draft, will there be term limits? Are term limits good or bad? How about the argument that in a parliamentary system, it is impractical to have term limits because politicians rise from the ranks in the parliament before he or she becomes a leader of the parliament?

The People’s Draft provides for a 3-term limit, because it is a crowd-sourced constitution, and that is the feedback we got from the crowd. Personally, I think the argument for lifting term limits is reasonable and justified, particularly for a parliamentary system based on collegial rule, where party members move up the leadership ladder only through a considerable amount of time. For now, however, I think it’s more practical to go by popular sentiment, because of too much negativity in mass media. Anyway, the People’s Draft contains a provision allowing Congress to lift term limits later, say 15 years after its approval.

15. Why do you come up with a 5 year term? Why not 4, why do away with 6? Why not 3?

Based on general feedback, 3 years is too short. During the 1st year the pols learn, the 2nd year they work, and the 3rd year they campaign. Before the 1987 constitution, the term was 6 years. 5 years is therefore a compromise. Moreover, it’s 5 not 4, for consistency with economic development plans which are generally designed in multiples of 5 years. 

On federalism:

16. Unlike in the USA, they have large states. Aren’t we too small for a federal republic? Do we really need federalism? What other countries are federal systems?

The People’s Draft does not impose federalism nationwide. Instead, it implements flexible regional decentralization, where the people have 3 choices, i.e. regional authority (like SBMA), autonomous region (like BARMM), and substate (like Sabah). 

Since our country is composed of 3 peoples and cultures (i.e. Christians, Muslims, Indigenous Peoples) spread across 7,100 islands, I believe some regions may eventually choose to have their own substate. 

Malaysia is a much smaller country, but it has federal form of government. In the end, it is not only about size. It is also about culture, politics, economy, and the choice of the people.

The best example applicable to us would be Malaysia.

17. How is it different to be under a federal system versus our present system?

Under the federal system, a substate will be sovereign, and will have its own legislative and executive branches, and later its own judicial branch. It will have its own internal security force to secure persons and properties, but not its own police or military. Secession will be prohibited, and legislative powers on taxation and business limited.

18. I understand that the People’s Draft is proposing a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach? Can you explain the difference between these approaches?

By “bottom up” approach, we allow the people of the regions to decide the type of government they will have. If they want an autonomous region or substate, they should work for it and win a regional plebiscite, in the same way that BARMM was created. 

By “top down” approach, federalism or regional autonomy for the entire country is already pre-designed, and the people will be limited to a yes or no vote in a national plebiscite.

19. Why does the people’s draft prefer the bottoms-up approach?

We believe it is important to respect the people’s right to self-determination. Moreover, we are a nation of tri-people (Christians, Muslims, Indigenous Peoples), with different and even conflicting histories. Thus, we prefer the bottom-up approach.

On FDIs:

20. Do we really need to open our country to FDIs? Why do we want to have FDIs?

We need FDIs to augment local capital for job creation, price reduction and tax generation. The policy to close the economy to foreign business has been there for 85 years already. Now, we have 10% of the population living overseas, and more than 20% living in poverty. We urgently need to make use of ALL resources available, to address the very serious economic problems we face.

21. What industries do you plan to open up? How about ownership of land? Why or why not?

Under the People’s Draft, everything is open except land, small-scale mining and micro-enterprise. Nonetheless, all foreign investments will subject to regulation by a foreign investment council to protect national security. The President or Congress may impose reciprocity in investments, if the national interest requires it. Congress may by law also impose limitations later, if again the national interest requires it. For professional practice, reciprocity is required, which is the current practice.

For land, I think alienable public lands should be for Filipinos only, because this is like their inheritance to the national patrimony. For private land however, I personally think we should be more open. For example, owners of very costly industrial facilities would be more comfortable if they owned, instead of just leased, the small parcel land where the facility is built. For mass housing, I think it will be cheaper if you have more developers competing with each other. Anyway, Congress has the power to prohibit foreign ownership of land at any time, if national interest requires it.

Nonetheless, the People’s Draft excludes land for now, because it is a crowd-sourced constitution, and this appears to be the sentiment of the crowd. Anyway, Congress is given the power to revisit this issue later, based on national interest.

22. Why not just revise the old constitution by putting in “unless otherwise provided by law” on the economic restrictions?

We have a Foreign Investments Act approved way back in 1991 to declare the policy to promote investments. However, for the past 30 years, there was no substantial follow through, except only for retail trade and financing companies. Thus, based on the track record of congress, I think nothing much will happen if we simply add the clause “unless otherwise provided by law.” 

23. Do you have examples of countries that succeed while their economy is open to foreign investors?

We have small and big countries close to us that successfully used foreign investments to grow and develop. There’s Singapore and China.

24. Are there countries where land can be owned by foreigners?

Based on an old survey by the World Bank on Investing Across Borders, about 20% of the countries globally prohibit foreign ownership of land. Thus, an overwhelming majority of about 80% allow it.

25. Are there countries that are closed to foreign investors that prosper on their own?

I understand that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may have developed with local investors taking the lead. They were family-owned corporations that partnered with government. In the Philippines however, the large family-owned businesses here did not go into industrialization. They instead went to real estate development, retail and public utility services. Moreover, the prospect of a family-owned business partnering with government may only be pulled down here as a “crony” corporation. Thus, the experience in our neighbors in North East Asia, does not necessarily apply to the country.

On procedure to amend the constitution:

26. I understand it is hard to change the constitution because the manner by which to change it is difficult – made so by the constitution itself. So how do you go about pushing for this?

Yes, by our hard experience first-hand, it is almost impossible to change the constitution, because the forces opposing it are apparently much stronger than a sitting president. Thus, I have come to believe that only a whole-of-nation approach will finally succeed in changing the constitution. It’s like a “soft” people’s power where all sectors, peoples and regions come together to achieve a common goal. 

With this mind, we are carrying out an information, education and communication campaign, in both social media and traditional media. We are also building a network of people’s organizations that believe in system change. Finally, we will be filing with the Senate and the House, a petition for indirect initiative to consider the People’s Draft for plebiscite in May 2022.

27. How about people’s initiative, why not push it this way?

The traditional people’s initiative needs at least 6M signatures. We do not have the capability to gather such a huge number of signatories. Thus, we will only go for building a network of people’s organizations across the different sectors, peoples and regions, to push for constitutional reform.

28. What is your take on Constituent Assembly? Why not Constitutional convention?

I do not believe that a constitutional convention will be any different from a constituent assembly. The members of a constitutional convention will be elected from the same districts where the present members of congress come from. Accordingly, I expect the same incumbent political forces, to dominate elections for delegates to the constitutional convention. 

29. If the draft is passed, what then is the proposed way of constitutional amendment in the people’s draft itself moving forward?

Our petition for indirect initiative merely calls on the Senate and House to convene as constituent assembly, and consider the People’s Draft for plebiscite in May 2022.

30. Isn’t it dangerous to have the way to amend the constitution easier than what we have now? Is it not dangerous the change the constitution every now and then where politicians are like having their way?

I think it’s anti-democratic and more dangerous to have the constitution written stone, that cannot be amended even by the people themselves. The problems we have are not only about how the laws are implemented. They are also about how the laws are made. This includes the constitution, the highest law of the land.

 

31. What about the lingering issues on the integrity of the automated elections, considering that a new constitution will require voting in a plebiscite?

The People’s Draft addresses this problem by incorporating a provision that expressly requires a manual count or audit, immediately after the close of voting, and even if the system is automated. This is our hybrid election clause. 

Interviewer: Mr. Arnel B. Endrinal

Interviewee: Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato

Date: 20 February 2021

1972 Martial Law

 

1972 Martial Law

Juan Ponce Enrile, 16 June 2021

Much of what had been said against the 1972 Martial Law was fiction. President Marcos became president of the country in 1965. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a bitter Cold War. And the communist ideology went on a rampage and set the world ablaze.

 

The Philippines was not spared. Two insurgencies were organized in the country in 1968. The CPP-NPA in Luzon and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in Mindanao. These insurgencies were on top of ongoing Datu Maffallen, Datu Mampatilan, Datu Mabbalao, and Ilaga rebellions there. Beyond these were also the heavily armed political warlords in many parts of the country. Such was the status of law and order in the land at that time.

 

The CPP-NPA and the Moro National Liberation Front were organized by three young men: Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Nur Misuari, and Jose Maria Sison. These three were former students in the University of the Philippines. They were allegedly supported by a country in East Asia that wanted to keep the Philippines busy.

 

The AFP then - which included the Philippine Constabulary - was a military force of some 48, 000 men and women. Its combat weapons were Cal. 30 M1 Garand and Cal. 30 M1 Carbine rifles that the United States used in World War II.

 

The CPP-NPA was armed with copies of Cal. 7.62mm U.S. M14 rifles, P-40 rocket launchers, mortars, and other lethal explosive devices imported from red China. The MNLF was armed with modern European guns from Belgium.

 

The CPP-NPA and MNLF recruitment was quick and extensive. The CPP-NPA for one penetrated all sectors of society: youth, students, teachers, academe. colleges, universities, churches, professional and intellectual groups, media, labor, farmers, fishermen, transport systems, urban and rural poor. Both also targeted the military for recruitment.

 

The NPA started its violence in Metro Manila and Central Luzon. Initially, its headquarters was in Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. It built a labyrinth of underground tunnels in the town of Capas. It terrorized the countryside and murdered those that resisted it. During the national election in 1969, about August or September, the NPA massacred twelve laborers in barangay Sta. Lucia outside Clark Air Base.

 

In January, 1970, while President Marcos was delivering his SONA in Congress, the CPP barricaded the old Congress building on P. Burgos Street in Manila. It trapped President Marcos, his family, Senators, congressmen, Cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, diplomats, other political and religious dignitaries, and leading business leaders inside the Congress building.

 

A day or two after, CPP elements stormed Malacañang, burned a hospital there, threatened the presidential residence. President Marcos had to evacuate his family to his presidential (yacht) in Manila Bay.

 

With the help of barrio self defense units that it organized in Central Luzon, the AFP was able to dislodge the NPA from there. It pushed them north to Isabela in the Cagayan Valley. And from there the NPA spread to Region IV in the south to the Bicol region to the Visayan Islands, and to Mindanao.

 

Meanwhile, in Metro Manila, the communists continued their destructive work. First, they bombed the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. They bombed the Liberal Party rally at Plaza Miranda during the political campaign in August, 1971. Several people were killed. Many were injured. Senator Jovito Salonga, among others, suffered severe wounds on different parts of his body. He nearly became blind.

 

From 1970 to 1972, metropolitan Manila suffered weekly bombing. The communist insurgents bombed Oil firms, pipelines of water utilities, Meralco electric power systems, public and private buildings, business structures, public and private markets. Even the US Embassy was not spared. So were the Food Terminal Market, the Arca building, the Filipinas Orient Airways, the Court of Industrial Relations, the Philippine-American Life Insurance Company, to mention some of many.

 

Massive labor and transport strikes were mounted. The communists tried to isolate and paralyze Metro-Manila. SLEX and NLEX were not existing yet then. One of the transport strikes created a traffic jam that stretched from Los Baños in Laguna to Manila.

 

The communists also captured UP Diliman in Quezon City. They established a Communist Commune there under Erickson Baculinao as Chairman. For several weeks UP Diliman was off limits. No one could go in and out of the place. Permission from the Commune was required. UP President Salvador Lopez became a virtual prisoner in his university. One person was shot and killed in that incident.

 

In July, 1972, Defense Minister General Maraden Panggabean of Indonesia was my official guest in Manila. When he observed what was going on in the country, he said in one of our conversations: "You know, Johnny, what I noticed about your country reminds of what happened to us in Indonesia during the communist trouble there. Be careful!"

 

The final straw that broke the camel's back came from Ninoy Aquino himself. In August, 1972, Ninoy asked me for an urgent meeting. I met him in Urdaneta Village in Maketi in the house of Ramon Siy Lay, our common friend. His brother Paul Aquino was with him. He told me that he met leaders of the CPP, and they discussed a coalition between the CPP and the Liberal Party should President Marcos declare Martial Law.

 

I made a written report of that meeting to President Marcos. When President Marcos informed the public about what I reported to him, Ninoy denied that he met me. President Marcos invited the Liberal Party leaders to Malacañang for meeting with him, but the Liberal Party leaders refused to attend. This incident made up the mind of President Marcos. history was made. He proclaimed Martial Law throughout the land.

 

https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile

https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile/posts/10159802919798783

 

Oligopolies stall Philippines development; more FDI needed – Salceda

 

Oligopolies stall Philippines development; more FDI needed – Salceda

Delon Porcalla 

(The Philippine Star )

- June 14, 2021 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines remains a laggard among its Asian neighbors, partly because of the influence oligopolies have over practically all administrations and, as such, local tycoons’ businesses thrive and deprive the country of much-needed foreign direct investments.

This was the assessment made recently by Albay Rep. Joey Salceda on the state of economic affairs in the country, in a recent digital forum sponsored by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

“Operating as monopolies and oligopolies, the corporate conglomerates find it convenient to restrict production and investment below the competitive level,” the economist lawmaker who chairs the House ways and means committee said.

An oligopoly exists when a market or industry is dominated by a small group of large producers and sellers.

Citing the country’s few FDI, Salceda explained that foreign investors’ “willingness to invest” is “inhibited by their concentrated ownership structure and their uncertainties about the stability and duration of government favoritism.”

The DILG-led webinar sessions are held in support of Resolution of Both Houses 2 (RBH 2), authored by Speaker Lord Allan Velasco, which seeks to open up the country to more foreign investors by amending restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution.

Asked about the impact of opening the economy on the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), Salceda said more FDI should benefit market competition.

“FDI restrictions lead to lack of competition in the country which increases oligopolistic power and reduces the need to invest. As a result, oligopolies are the ones benefitting from profits, influence law, and prevent foreign competitions to enter the Philippines,” he said.

Salceda lamented that while the country’s post-Marcos Constitution made sure dictatorships will never see the light of day again, its very rigid protectionist economic policies allowed domestic industries to be controlled by oligopolies.

“In trying to be nationalistic with our Constitution, we have ironically fattened our domestic oligopolies, at the expense of the people. Shamefully, and once again, we are the most oligopolistic market in the region,” he said.

Seeking to correct this is what moved the House to approve RBH 2 on third and final reading last June 1. It is now pending before the Senate.

Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr., who heads the House committee on constitutional amendments, remarked on Independence Day last Saturday that Filipinos should be “free” from the “economic chains” in the 1987 Constitution.

“Twenty (20) years of the 21st Century have passed and we are realizing now that we cannot prosper in the remaining decades of this 21st Century if we keep ourselves chained to these restrictive economic provisions,” said Garbin as he urged the Senate to act on RBH 2.

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2021/06/14/2105309/oligopolies-stall-philippines-development-more-fdi-needed-salceda?fbclid=IwAR28X0gIZ1b6NnwJbrv0u1lVii2gdWYVcT4AxylF5amRtGNE6gRPd4H79vQ

Easing of foreign ownership restrictions to break ‘vicious cycle’ of oligopolies —Salceda

 

Albay Representative Joey Salceda

Easing of foreign ownership restrictions to break ‘vicious cycle’ of oligopolies —Salceda

By TED CORDERO, GMA News

Published June 11, 2021 2:51pm

Albay Representative Joey Salceda said Friday that easing foreign ownership restrictions in the 1987 Constitution will open the country for more foreign direct investments (FDIs) which will force local large enterprises to invest more and be competitive.

Salceda, an economist, is one of the key proponents of the Resolution of Both Houses No. 2, which seeks to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution.

The measure has been adopted by the House of Representatives on third and final reading on June 1.

RBH No. 2 is seeking to insert the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" to the constitutional provisions on national economy and patrimony; education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports; and on general provisions to give Congress flexibility to enact laws that would free up the economy to foreign investors.

Salceda said the measure will open the economy to more FDIs, noting that the Philippines is among the most restrictive to FDIs across various sectors.

“FDI restrictions also resulted in the presence of oligopolies, making the Philippines the most oligopolistic in the region,” the lawmaker said, citing data from the World Economic Forum.

Salceda said this is the case since the market is dominated by a small group of large conglomerates.

“Oligopolies further reduce the investment appetite. Operating as monopolies and oligopolies, the corporate conglomerates find it convenient to restrict production - and investment - below the competitive level,” he said.

“Also, their willingness to invest is inhibited by their concentrated ownership structure, and their uncertainties about the stability and duration of government favoritism,” he added.

To break the “vicious cycle” of undisturbed oligopolies, easing restrictions on FDIs will force local conglomerates to be “reasonably competitive” and “invest more” in the country.

“We are not really after the money, we are after the technology and knowledge transfer which foreign investments can provide,” Salceda said.

Citing data from the World Bank and Department of Finance estimates, the lawmaker said the Philippines’ share of FDIs in Southeast Asia declined from 5.1% in 1996 to 4.4% in 2019 due to restrictive and protectionist provisions in the Constitution.

Salceda said if the Philippines opens its doors further to foreign investors through easing of foreign ownership restrictions, the country can dramatically grow the same way as Vietnam when its gross domestic product grew five times from $6.472 billion in 1990 to $31.173 billion in 2000 when it passed its Foreign Investment law in 1987.

This is also favorable for the country as it moves to recover from a pandemic-induced recession.

The Makabayan bloc earlier said that the measure would not address the pandemic's adverse effects on the lives of Filipinos.

Other lawmakers also feared that this would only pave the way for the introduction of political amendments in the present Constitution such as term extension for some elected officials or lifting their term limits.

But Speaker Lord Allan Velasco has insisted that the intention is purely to help the Philippines rise from the pandemic and to make the country fully-competitive with Asian neighbors.—AOL, GMA News

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/791146/easing-of-foreign-ownership-restrictions-to-break-vicious-cycle-of-oligopolies-salceda/story/

Filipino last?

 Filipino last?

DEMAND AND SUPPLY - Boo Chanco 

(The Philippine Star) - June 7, 2021 - 12:00am

The Filipino First policy, a legacy from our post WW2 politicians, resulted in the Philippines being relegated from second only to Japan, to last in our region of tiger economies. It was a policy that was used by our economic elite for rent-seeking privileges.

With Filipino First, we developed a feeling of economic insecurity that made us afraid of foreign investors. This kind of economic nationalism is not useful in today’s world.

It enabled the economic elite to keep prices high to the disadvantage of Filipino consumers while delivering mostly substandard products and services. Puede na yan means Pinoys must live with less quality.

In the telecom industry, I still remember how my parents waited over 10 years to get a telephone line from PLDT.

Then the industry was liberalized by FVR, but investors were limited to Filipinos. There were six or seven groups that got franchises to compete with PLDT. Soon, they all sold out to PLDT or Globe. Rent-seeking at its best.

Telecoms is an industry that requires big investments. Only the international players can be expected to compete with our telecoms duopoly.

And if we really think about it, even the current prohibition for foreign ownership in telecoms looks silly, with Globe and PLDT effectively controlled by foreign entities. The largest shareholder of Globe is Singapore Telecom, not Ayala. PLDT is Indonesia’s First Pacific.

Now, you might say, if foreigners can do what they did in Globe and PLDT under current rules, is there still a need to amend the Public Service Act to liberalize foreign ownership?

Yes, because many foreign investors want straightforward rules and policies that allow them majority ownership. If they have to go to a local law firm to help them go around the Constitution, that makes them susceptible to corruption from local regulators and the courts.

The proposal to exclude telecommunications from the definition of public utility subject to the 60/40 rule had been passed by the House and is now pending in the Senate.

But some senators are using national security as an excuse to stop the measure. It is easy to suspect they are just trying to keep out competitors of the existing players.

The issue however, is beyond the telecoms industry. We simply need more foreign investors to come in and create jobs. But because they sense a lack of hospitality for foreign capital through our Filipino First policies, they go elsewhere, like Vietnam.

The latest preliminary data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) showed that foreign investments in 1Q21 fell by 32.9 percent YoY to P19.6 billion from P29.1 billion, marking the fifth consecutive quarter with a YoY decline and the lowest level since the P15.5 billion logged in 2Q20.

Foreign capital goes where it is welcome, and countries in our region are more hospitable to foreign capital than we are.

But why should we be afraid of foreign investments?

I received this e-mail from a senior Korean business executive who was reacting to a column I wrote on Vietnam and how it overtook us in economic growth.

“Your column on Feb 12, was quite instructive for me. I’ve been thinking over and I suggest you write another column on ‘Why Samsung Electronics went to Vietnam’.

“In 2008, the big boss of Samsung was here in the Philippines to evaluate the business conditions on which country is the best for them. But finally, Samsung chose Vietnam. Not the Philippines.

“This is quite an interesting story because the Philippines still has the same way of thinking as in 2008. There are many restrictions and limitations on foreign investors here in the Philippines. Under these restrictions, I am sure no big Korean investments will come.

“None of the other countries in the region have such restrictions on foreign investors. Every country is willing to give special incentives and benefits for foreign investors. Please study why Samsung went to Vietnam in 2008.

“Now, the biggest investors in Vietnam are Korean. More than 9000 Korean companies are located in Vietnam. (Here only a few hundred). Whenever I talk to officials of the government, I think they don’t know this story.”

Unfortunately, the Senate may continue to be a hindrance to foreign investments.

Senator Recto is opposing the PSA bill because he is afraid the Chinese may take over our telecom industry. Precisely why we need the PSA bill to pass… The industry grapevine tells me that two Japanese telcos (KDDI and Softbank) are eager to come in, but only if they will be legally allowed to invest in majority ownership.

To safeguard national security, three provisions were included: vetting by the National Security Council and approval by the President of all investments in critical infrastructure; prohibition of SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises) from investing in telecommunications or increasing their share; cybersecurity ISO certification for critical infrastructure.

The ban on investment of SOEs (State-owned Enterprises) in telecom and other critical infrastructure effectively bans all Chinese telecom companies because they are all SOEs. But China Telecom is already invested in Dito Telecommunity.

The danger to national security is not so much who owns the telecom companies, but who manufactures the equipment they use. All existing telecom companies here use China’s Huawei equipment.

By allowing Japanese, Korean and other foreign players in, we may be able to diversify our sources of equipment as well. This is important because eventually under the US CLEAN program, our telcos won’t be allowed into the US financial system using Huawei equipment. That cuts us from the US banking system.

In the proposed PSA, a blanket ban on all foreign ownership of telcos being contemplated by some senators will leave us with three telcos dependent on Huawei equipment. We run the risk of our telcos‘ technology getting obsolete as Huawei is denied advanced US technology.

Passing the PSA bill is the first step to create a favorable investment environment here for foreign investors.

We have to stop being afraid of foreign capital. We just have to properly regulate their activities. Letting them own their business here should not matter. They bring competition that benefits consumers, and we need the jobs they will create.

Our Filipino First policy only made Filipinos last. That’s the awful truth.

https://www.philstar.com/business/2021/06/07/2103544/filipino-last?fbclid=IwAR3cyQHpe1XI85-TlJJ_ANw7EO3r15S9jtUgZBZ8P-lRJSv7ZV4VyR9zw2c

"COLLEGIAL RULE" FOR "GOOD GOVERNANCE"

 

“COLLEGIAL RULE” FOR

“GOOD GOVERNANCE”

 

 

            Collegial rule promotes “good governance” because it provides for proficiency, integrity and accountability in making and implementing policies and programs of government.

 

            Firstly, collegial rule by its inherent nature harnesses Collegial wisdom. It extrapolates to a higher level the idiom “two heads are better than one.” [PROFICIENCY]

 

            Secondly, collegial rule impedes graft and corruption because its group-based mechanism necessarily requires the disclosure of material information to many individuals. As human experience shows, “corruption thrives in secrecy, and withers in the light.” [INTEGRITY]

 

            Thirdly, collegial rule strengthens accountability because it separates the “exercise of power” from the “ultimate hold on power.” As political reality shows, the individual with delegated authority to exercise executive power, routinely defers to the Collegial will of the assembly of elected representatives, because this body holds the ultimate authority to hire-and-fire him. [ACCOUNTABILITY]

 

Collegial rule also promotes consensus building, because it pre-supposes or necessarily requires the support of a majority to gain and retain political power. On the other hand, one-man rule may promote authoritarianism, because power may be gained by mere plurality of votes (i.e. a minority vote vis-à-vis the total votes), and may be retained despite overwhelming opposition, because the usual remedies for removal are either ineffective or impossible.

 

Collegial rule by majority vote in Collegial decision making, is the standard in a parliamentary system (at the national level) and in a council type system (at the local level). It is the opposite of one-man rule by an individual decision maker, which is the virtual standard in a presidential system (at the national level) and in a mayor type system (at the local level).

 

            Following the American presidential system with separation of powers, the single individual who becomes president and assumes one-man rule, takes full control of the entire executive branch; appoints all the justices and judges of the judicial branch; enjoys immunity or cannot be sued while in office; and cannot be removed from office, except by impeachment (i.e. an ineffective legal remedy) or people’s power (i.e. a practical impossibility). This is the sad and sorry state of politics in the Philippines which undoubtedly needs to be revisited, re-examined and restructured.

 

On the other hand, in the British parliamentary system that adopts collegial rule, the political branches of the executive and the legislature are merged, but leaves separate and independent the non-political branch of the judiciary. Accordingly, an effective mechanism for checks-and-balances is retained, notwithstanding the merger of executive and legislative branches of government. This is a working system of government, where some (not necessarily all) features may be considered and adopted by the Philippines.

 

            Collegial rule weakens the control or influence of the oligarchs and the family dynasties over the government, by dispersing the ultimate power of control from one individual to an assembly of elected representatives. At the same time, it strengthens the government vis-a-vis the powerful vested interests, by consolidating the law-making and law-execution powers in the assembly of representatives.

 

Furthermore, collegial rule diminishes the natural advantage of “rich and famous” candidates over competent but underfunded and unknown candidates, through “voting by district” in multiple small constituencies, instead of “voting at large” in one big constituency. Notably, a manipulative mass media is less effective in small constituencies, because here the voter has greater chances of knowing the real qualities of the candidate.^[i] Moreover, the selection process involving multiple small constituencies requires a substantially lower number of votes to win the post of chief executive.^[ii]

 

Finally, collegial rule makes the chief executive more readily removable for acts or omissions involving fault or negligence, through a mere vote of “loss of confidence” in the assembly of elected representatives, rather than through an impeachment trial, administrative proceeding or criminal prosecution.

           

Does collegial rule have any known disadvantage or systemic weakness? Yes, it does. The mechanism to easily hire-and-fire the chief executive may cause instability. Can this be avoided? Yes, it can.

 

Since the chief executive is ordinarily removable at any time by majority vote of the members of the elective assembly for mere loss of confidence, there can be frequent changes in political leaders over short durations like every few months or years. Changes in political leaders usually involve changes in policy. This results in the unpredictability of government that eventually hampers business and economic activity.

 

Nonetheless, this systemic weakness may be addressed by modifying the mechanism to hire-and-fire the chief executive. The modified method can make it easy to “hire” the chief executive (such as by simple majority vote), but at the same time, difficult to “fire” him (such as by qualified 2/3 majority vote). Once elected, the chief executive may then hold the position until the expiration or termination of his membership in the elective assembly, or until he is earlier removed from office by higher or qualified majority vote.

 

            Accordingly, by modifying the method to hire-and-fire the chief executive, the people may enjoy the benefits of collegial rule, without the disadvantage of political instability.

 

 

 

This material was written ex-gratia by Demosthenes B. Donato

for Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc.

All intellectual property rights are granted to the public domain.

10 May 2021. Makati City, Philippines.

 

 

 Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the author

and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of TanDem.

 

---

[i] The electoral process for public officials needs to be designed in a manner that is immune from any deliberate manipulation of public opinion by mass media, considering that many television stations, radio stations, broadsheets, tabloids and online news sites, are by common knowledge owned or influenced by the oligarchs and the family dynasties.

 

[ii] For example, in a state with 10,000,000 voters and only 2 candidates, a candidate needs 5,000,000 + 1 votes to win as president (chief executive), assuming that all voters vote in a “presidential system” with direct voting. On the other hand, in a “parliamentary system” assuming 100 districts with 100,000 voters per district, the party of a candidate for prime minister (chief executive) needs to win only 51 seats in the parliament (national assembly). This would be 2,550,000 + 51 (or 50,000 + 1 per district) or total of 2,550,051 votes only, assuming all voters in all districts vote.

 

Another example, in a town with 10,000 voters and only 2 candidates, a candidate needs 5,000 + 1 votes to win as mayor, assuming that all voters vote in a “mayor type system”. On the other hand, in a “council type system” assuming 10 districts with 1,000 voters per district, the party of a mayoralty candidate needs to win only 6 seats in the council. This would be 3,000 + 6 (or 500 + 1 per district) or total of 3,006 votes only, assuming all voters in all districts vote.