Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Asia Foundation on the Philippines, March 14, 2001
Political Economy in the Philippines: New Directions
by Dr. Florian Alburo
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
Excerpts
I would like to highlight
what I see as the elusive nature of sustained economic growth in the
Philippines. I will address the country’s long term economic
performance and the cumulative nature of the economic problems
inherited by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Finally, I will turn
to our globalizing world and then, briefly, to the economic
relationship between the Philippines and the United States.
In the period right after World War II, the Philippines’ growth
rate was comparable to that of the so-called Asian Tigers. Back in
the 1950s, the Philippines even bested countries like Malaysia,
Singapore, and South Korea. But by the 1980s, the Philippine
growth rate had deteriorated to an annual 1.2 percent per capita.
Meanwhile, other countries in the
region were achieving growth rates of
nearly 10 percent.
The growth rate is only one part
of the story. The Philippines’ vast
natural resources and our educated
labor force are reflected in our
exports, and that’s another point of
comparison. Even as late as the
1970s, Philippine exports were
besting the Tigers’ exports. We
exported $1.1 billion in merchandise
compared to only $800 million in
exports each for South Korea and
Singapore.
Then the gap began to widen in favor of the Tigers. By 1980,
the Philippines was exporting $5.7 billion in goods, compared with
South Korean exports of $17.5 billion and Taiwanese exports of
$20 billion. The most recent figures show that in 1998, the
Philippines exported $29 billion in goods and services while South
Korean exports jumped to $132.3 billion and Singapore’s to $110
billion.
Again, during the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Philippines
was actually poised to turn the corner sooner and faster. But again,
a sustained economic recovery proved elusive, and our recovery path
fell far short compared to our neighbors.
The circumstances we are seeing do not represent isolated
instances. To the contrary, they fit in with a 40- year trend of lower
than potential growth rates and an expanding population. It seems
we are never quite able to push ourselves into the next orbit, where
faster economic growth is possible. This is partly due to a habit of
new regimes reversing whatever economic policies are in place when
they take over. Another explanation is related to the Philippines’
inability to successfully withstand either external or internal shocks.
Take, for example, the government of Diosdado Macapagal, the
father of President Arroyo. Macapagal was the first Philippine
president to systematically carry out structural reform. By the way,
he held a PhD in economics. Unfortunately, after Macapagal,
Ferdinand Marcos refused to build on these reforms. In fact, slowly
but surely, he reversed them. Yes, the Marcos era did realize growth
spurts, but the growth was not the result of true structural reform.
It was the result of a debt-driven bubble, and eventually, the bubble
burst. When it burst, it spared only those who had already benefited
from the bubble.
Then, the government of Corazon Aquino had a rare
opportunity to again pursue reforms. Instead, President Aquino
focused on restoring democracy. That was an important choice, but
it meant that the next administration—that of Fidel Ramos—had to
start at virtually ground zero with the economy. The Aquino
administration had pursued economic reforms but in piecemeal
fashion. Ultimately time ran out.
When the Estrada regime took over in 1998, at first President
Estrada made sensible pronouncements and advocated very worthy
causes. The regime made a credible start. But then, when the
government started to pursue reforms in a collective fashion, Estrada
personally reversed the reforms!
It seems new presidents rarely, if ever, build on what has gone
before, particularly when we look back over the last 40 years in the
Philippines. Each administration seems to prefer to make highly
selective decisions about what it likes as opposed to what the
country actually needs. In almost every case, new administrations
that began with a bang, ended in despair and crisis. In the process,
the institutions of government also suffered.
Let me go back to the 40-year time span. Every president in the
Philippines, starting with Diosdado Macapagal, began his or her
administration at ground zero. Macapagal came into office
following a crisis in 1960. Marcos began his term at about the time
the economy was poised to reverse itself and climb out of the dip.
But what was the first thing he did in 1970 after his election in
1969? He raised the value of the peso.
When Aquino took over, she inherited an economy that was
again headed into the pits. Both Ramos and Estrada began their
tenures in office when the economy actually was in the pits. In each
and every case, the new administration started with a bang but
ended up in crisis.
The cumulative effect of this penchant to reverse whatever
policies preceded a president in office has held back the Philippine
economy.
A colleague at the University of the Philippines says that
the individuals who have dominated the Philippine economy have
been engaged in value extraction and not value creation. Saying
these people are all guilty of being rent seekers, or looking for a fast
buck, is another way to put it.
In the Philippines, the richest families represent 20 percent of
the population and account for more than 55 percent of the overall
income. That means that the remaining 80 percent of families
receives 45 percent of the overall income. This is a case of
deteriorating income distribution and was most noticeable from
1991 to 1997. This is not a recipe for alleviating poverty. To the
contrary! It is a recipe for accelerating poverty. It means that our
country is sitting on top of a social volcano.
Our unemployment rate is another cause for concern. The
overall picture shows unemployment increasing—not decreasing. It
also highlights a classic difference between the Philippines and other
countries in the region. When quarterly rates are compared, the
Tiger countries have actually reduced unemployment, and have
begun their climb out of poverty and away from a widening
inequality gap. The Philippines, on the other hand, is experiencing
rising unemployment and greater inequality.
The problems are inter-related. A country manages to lift itself
out of poverty if it is able to increase employment. In turn, social
inequality is reduced when employment opportunities grow. The
solution is painful reform, not economic palliatives.
It took the Asian Tigers a decade to build up their economies to
where they are now. The same is roughly true for Japan. If reforms
can take hold in the Philippines and be nurtured over a period of
time, they will go a long way toward positioning the country to
become a more effective and influential global player. We ignore the
globalizing world at our own peril. We need structural reforms to
get our economy into the shape it has to be in order to compete
internationally. The returns on that investment will facilitate our
recovery, boost employment growth, and help improve income
distribution.
To be sure, trade is the Philippines’ largest growth sector—and
has been ever since the Asian crisis. Currently, we are experiencing a
slowdown, but it’s possible the slowdown is in part a reflection of a
structural change resulting in the favored trade of services over
goods.
In the meantime, the United States continues to be an
important trading partner for us. Some 20 percent of our exports
are earmarked for the United States. In return, the United States
accounts for more than 20 percent of Philippine imports.
Americans also are a source of capital and know-how.
by Dr. Florian Alburo
University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City
Excerpts
I would like to highlight
what I see as the elusive nature of sustained economic growth in the
Philippines. I will address the country’s long term economic
performance and the cumulative nature of the economic problems
inherited by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Finally, I will turn
to our globalizing world and then, briefly, to the economic
relationship between the Philippines and the United States.
In the period right after World War II, the Philippines’ growth
rate was comparable to that of the so-called Asian Tigers. Back in
the 1950s, the Philippines even bested countries like Malaysia,
Singapore, and South Korea. But by the 1980s, the Philippine
growth rate had deteriorated to an annual 1.2 percent per capita.
Meanwhile, other countries in the
region were achieving growth rates of
nearly 10 percent.
The growth rate is only one part
of the story. The Philippines’ vast
natural resources and our educated
labor force are reflected in our
exports, and that’s another point of
comparison. Even as late as the
1970s, Philippine exports were
besting the Tigers’ exports. We
exported $1.1 billion in merchandise
compared to only $800 million in
exports each for South Korea and
Singapore.
Then the gap began to widen in favor of the Tigers. By 1980,
the Philippines was exporting $5.7 billion in goods, compared with
South Korean exports of $17.5 billion and Taiwanese exports of
$20 billion. The most recent figures show that in 1998, the
Philippines exported $29 billion in goods and services while South
Korean exports jumped to $132.3 billion and Singapore’s to $110
billion.
Again, during the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Philippines
was actually poised to turn the corner sooner and faster. But again,
a sustained economic recovery proved elusive, and our recovery path
fell far short compared to our neighbors.
The circumstances we are seeing do not represent isolated
instances. To the contrary, they fit in with a 40- year trend of lower
than potential growth rates and an expanding population. It seems
we are never quite able to push ourselves into the next orbit, where
faster economic growth is possible. This is partly due to a habit of
new regimes reversing whatever economic policies are in place when
they take over. Another explanation is related to the Philippines’
inability to successfully withstand either external or internal shocks.
Take, for example, the government of Diosdado Macapagal, the
father of President Arroyo. Macapagal was the first Philippine
president to systematically carry out structural reform. By the way,
he held a PhD in economics. Unfortunately, after Macapagal,
Ferdinand Marcos refused to build on these reforms. In fact, slowly
but surely, he reversed them. Yes, the Marcos era did realize growth
spurts, but the growth was not the result of true structural reform.
It was the result of a debt-driven bubble, and eventually, the bubble
burst. When it burst, it spared only those who had already benefited
from the bubble.
Then, the government of Corazon Aquino had a rare
opportunity to again pursue reforms. Instead, President Aquino
focused on restoring democracy. That was an important choice, but
it meant that the next administration—that of Fidel Ramos—had to
start at virtually ground zero with the economy. The Aquino
administration had pursued economic reforms but in piecemeal
fashion. Ultimately time ran out.
When the Estrada regime took over in 1998, at first President
Estrada made sensible pronouncements and advocated very worthy
causes. The regime made a credible start. But then, when the
government started to pursue reforms in a collective fashion, Estrada
personally reversed the reforms!
It seems new presidents rarely, if ever, build on what has gone
before, particularly when we look back over the last 40 years in the
Philippines. Each administration seems to prefer to make highly
selective decisions about what it likes as opposed to what the
country actually needs. In almost every case, new administrations
that began with a bang, ended in despair and crisis. In the process,
the institutions of government also suffered.
Let me go back to the 40-year time span. Every president in the
Philippines, starting with Diosdado Macapagal, began his or her
administration at ground zero. Macapagal came into office
following a crisis in 1960. Marcos began his term at about the time
the economy was poised to reverse itself and climb out of the dip.
But what was the first thing he did in 1970 after his election in
1969? He raised the value of the peso.
When Aquino took over, she inherited an economy that was
again headed into the pits. Both Ramos and Estrada began their
tenures in office when the economy actually was in the pits. In each
and every case, the new administration started with a bang but
ended up in crisis.
The cumulative effect of this penchant to reverse whatever
policies preceded a president in office has held back the Philippine
economy.
A colleague at the University of the Philippines says that
the individuals who have dominated the Philippine economy have
been engaged in value extraction and not value creation. Saying
these people are all guilty of being rent seekers, or looking for a fast
buck, is another way to put it.
In the Philippines, the richest families represent 20 percent of
the population and account for more than 55 percent of the overall
income. That means that the remaining 80 percent of families
receives 45 percent of the overall income. This is a case of
deteriorating income distribution and was most noticeable from
1991 to 1997. This is not a recipe for alleviating poverty. To the
contrary! It is a recipe for accelerating poverty. It means that our
country is sitting on top of a social volcano.
Our unemployment rate is another cause for concern. The
overall picture shows unemployment increasing—not decreasing. It
also highlights a classic difference between the Philippines and other
countries in the region. When quarterly rates are compared, the
Tiger countries have actually reduced unemployment, and have
begun their climb out of poverty and away from a widening
inequality gap. The Philippines, on the other hand, is experiencing
rising unemployment and greater inequality.
The problems are inter-related. A country manages to lift itself
out of poverty if it is able to increase employment. In turn, social
inequality is reduced when employment opportunities grow. The
solution is painful reform, not economic palliatives.
It took the Asian Tigers a decade to build up their economies to
where they are now. The same is roughly true for Japan. If reforms
can take hold in the Philippines and be nurtured over a period of
time, they will go a long way toward positioning the country to
become a more effective and influential global player. We ignore the
globalizing world at our own peril. We need structural reforms to
get our economy into the shape it has to be in order to compete
internationally. The returns on that investment will facilitate our
recovery, boost employment growth, and help improve income
distribution.
To be sure, trade is the Philippines’ largest growth sector—and
has been ever since the Asian crisis. Currently, we are experiencing a
slowdown, but it’s possible the slowdown is in part a reflection of a
structural change resulting in the favored trade of services over
goods.
In the meantime, the United States continues to be an
important trading partner for us. Some 20 percent of our exports
are earmarked for the United States. In return, the United States
accounts for more than 20 percent of Philippine imports.
Americans also are a source of capital and know-how.
$840Billion - U.S. Department of State's estimated untapped mineral wealth of the Philippines
Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Philippines, March 2006
Mining and Minerals: The Philippines has substantial copper, chromite, and gold deposits, and the country also is rich in many other minerals, including coal, cobalt, gypsum, iron, nickel, silver, and sulfur. There are also lesser deposits, not currently being mined, of bauxite, lead, mercury, molybdenum, and zinc. The latest exploration by the Minerals and Geosciences Bureau in 1996 estimated that the Philippines had 7.1 billion tons of metallic mineral reserves and 51 billion tons of nonmetallic mineral reserves. Of the metallic reserves, copper accounted for 4.8 billion tons, and gold accounted for 110,000 tons. Of the nonmetallic mineral reserves, limestone accounted for 29 billion tons and marble for 8.5 billion tons. The U.S. Department of State estimates that the Philippines possesses untapped mineral wealth of US$840 billion.
Mining and Minerals: The Philippines has substantial copper, chromite, and gold deposits, and the country also is rich in many other minerals, including coal, cobalt, gypsum, iron, nickel, silver, and sulfur. There are also lesser deposits, not currently being mined, of bauxite, lead, mercury, molybdenum, and zinc. The latest exploration by the Minerals and Geosciences Bureau in 1996 estimated that the Philippines had 7.1 billion tons of metallic mineral reserves and 51 billion tons of nonmetallic mineral reserves. Of the metallic reserves, copper accounted for 4.8 billion tons, and gold accounted for 110,000 tons. Of the nonmetallic mineral reserves, limestone accounted for 29 billion tons and marble for 8.5 billion tons. The U.S. Department of State estimates that the Philippines possesses untapped mineral wealth of US$840 billion.
Economic Crisis and Policy Choice
The Politics of Adjustment in the Third World
http://books.google.com/books?id=A_isdFOxOuIC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=National+Economy+and+Patrimony+comparison+%2B+world+constitution&source=web&ots=Afm9f09MeV&sig=TIfjObjjQWWJ7JUPHTJ4ehNt3EM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPP1,M1
The acute economic pressures of the 1980s have forced virtually all of Latin America and Africa and some countries in Asia into painful austerity programs and difficult economic reforms. Scholars have intensively analyzed the economics of this situation, but they have given much less attention to the political forces involved. In this volume a number of eminent contributors analyze the politics of adjustment in thirteen countries and nineteen governments, drawing comparisons not only across the full set of cases but also within clusters selected to clarify specific issues. Why do some governments respond promptly to signs of economic trouble, while others muddle indecisively for years? Why do some confine their response to temporary macroeconomic measures, while others adopt broader, even sweeping, programs of reform? What leads some countries to experiment with heterodox approaches, while most, however reluctantly, pursue orthodox courses? Why, confronted with intense political protest, have some governments persisted while others have altered or abandoned course? The answers to these questions are political, not economic, and they are examined here by Thomas M. Callaghy, Stephan Haggard, Miles Kahler, Robert R. Kauman, Joan M. Nelson, and Barbara Stallings.
http://books.google.com/books?id=A_isdFOxOuIC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=National+Economy+and+Patrimony+comparison+%2B+world+constitution&source=web&ots=Afm9f09MeV&sig=TIfjObjjQWWJ7JUPHTJ4ehNt3EM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPP1,M1
The acute economic pressures of the 1980s have forced virtually all of Latin America and Africa and some countries in Asia into painful austerity programs and difficult economic reforms. Scholars have intensively analyzed the economics of this situation, but they have given much less attention to the political forces involved. In this volume a number of eminent contributors analyze the politics of adjustment in thirteen countries and nineteen governments, drawing comparisons not only across the full set of cases but also within clusters selected to clarify specific issues. Why do some governments respond promptly to signs of economic trouble, while others muddle indecisively for years? Why do some confine their response to temporary macroeconomic measures, while others adopt broader, even sweeping, programs of reform? What leads some countries to experiment with heterodox approaches, while most, however reluctantly, pursue orthodox courses? Why, confronted with intense political protest, have some governments persisted while others have altered or abandoned course? The answers to these questions are political, not economic, and they are examined here by Thomas M. Callaghy, Stephan Haggard, Miles Kahler, Robert R. Kauman, Joan M. Nelson, and Barbara Stallings.
TUCP: 1987 Constitution a roadblock to full industrialization
TUCP: 1987 Constitution a roadblock to full industrialization
http://pia.gov.ph/?m=12&sec=reader&rp=6&fi=p060907.htm&no=56&date=
Quezon City (7 September) -- The country’s biggest labor organization said Wednesday the 1987 Constitution is a roadblock to the full industrialization of the country because it restricts, more than promotes, economic development through foreign capital inflow.
The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines ((TUCP), through its spokesman Alex Aguilar, said the one-million strong labor bloc, as intervenor, is also supporting the joint petition filed by the Sigaw ng Bayan and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.
As intervenor, the TUCP is supporting the petition, endorsed by 6.3 million Filipino voters, seeking to shift the country’s political structure from the failed US-style bicameral presidential system to a parliamentary system with a unicameral legislature.
“The Constitution restricts the full flowering of all segments of the domestic economy because it limits industrialization only to agriculture and agrarian reform,” said Aguilar.
The TUCP favors lifting the constitutional economic restrictions, Aguilar said, to allow the entry of foreign capital and generate foreign investments that will energize the economy and create quality, decent-paying jobs.
The bulk of foreign investments in Asia have been flowing into China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia, leading to their growth as economic powerhouses in the world’s fastest-growing region.
Aguilar said amendments to the Charter’s economic provisions “should promptly come next after the current efforts to first overhaul the country’s political structure.”
Once the shift to a parliamentary system is accomplished, the Interim Parliament could start working on amendments that will open the country’s inward-looking economy to overseas investments, Aguilar said.
“Despite our strong macro-economic fundamentals as attested by foreign credit rating institutions, Government cannot stimulate the economy to the point of creating the jobs we need to keep the unemployment rate down and significantly reduce it,” he said.
“This is because of a restrictive Constitution. We are losing by default to the rest of Asia simply by not acting on these Charter reforms,” he added.
Among these outmoded constitutional provisions is Article XII, Section 1, which states that: “The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.”
Aguilar said this provision limits industrialization only to the agricultural and agrarian sectors, and prevents the government from venturing into other fields not related to these two areas because it could be deemed unconstitutional.
As a result, he said, the Philippines has no choice but to stick to agriculture-related and agrarian-reform based industries like rice milling, fertilizer-making, forestry, and food canning, instead of entering into more lucrative fields like steel-making and machinery manufacturing.
Because many of our Asian neighbors are free from these restrictions in their respective Constitutions, they have long been into major industrialization ventures that helped to jump-start their respective economies, Aguilar said.
Compared with the Philippines that has discouraged the entry of foreign capital as mandated under the Constitution, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore have opened up their economies to foreigners by making investments viable and profitable under their laws.
Citing official data, Aguilar said foreign investments had, over the 1993-2002 period, totaled $37.34 billion in Malaysia; $34.94 billion in Singapore; and $33.09 billion in Thailand.
In contrast, similar investments in the Philippines totaled less than half at just $15.18 billion during the same period, according to a study done by the Asian Development Bank.
Therefore, to bring in billions of dollars of capital into the economy, he said constitutional restrictions limiting foreign ownership in key segments of the economy should be removed.
This can only be done, Aguilar said, by amending provisions in Articles XII (National Economy and Patrimony) and XVI (General Provisions), which restrict foreign investments in the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources; operation of public utilities; and ownership of educational institutions and mass media facilities. (PIA)
http://pia.gov.ph/?m=12&sec=reader&rp=6&fi=p060907.htm&no=56&date=
Quezon City (7 September) -- The country’s biggest labor organization said Wednesday the 1987 Constitution is a roadblock to the full industrialization of the country because it restricts, more than promotes, economic development through foreign capital inflow.
The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines ((TUCP), through its spokesman Alex Aguilar, said the one-million strong labor bloc, as intervenor, is also supporting the joint petition filed by the Sigaw ng Bayan and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.
As intervenor, the TUCP is supporting the petition, endorsed by 6.3 million Filipino voters, seeking to shift the country’s political structure from the failed US-style bicameral presidential system to a parliamentary system with a unicameral legislature.
“The Constitution restricts the full flowering of all segments of the domestic economy because it limits industrialization only to agriculture and agrarian reform,” said Aguilar.
The TUCP favors lifting the constitutional economic restrictions, Aguilar said, to allow the entry of foreign capital and generate foreign investments that will energize the economy and create quality, decent-paying jobs.
The bulk of foreign investments in Asia have been flowing into China, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia, leading to their growth as economic powerhouses in the world’s fastest-growing region.
Aguilar said amendments to the Charter’s economic provisions “should promptly come next after the current efforts to first overhaul the country’s political structure.”
Once the shift to a parliamentary system is accomplished, the Interim Parliament could start working on amendments that will open the country’s inward-looking economy to overseas investments, Aguilar said.
“Despite our strong macro-economic fundamentals as attested by foreign credit rating institutions, Government cannot stimulate the economy to the point of creating the jobs we need to keep the unemployment rate down and significantly reduce it,” he said.
“This is because of a restrictive Constitution. We are losing by default to the rest of Asia simply by not acting on these Charter reforms,” he added.
Among these outmoded constitutional provisions is Article XII, Section 1, which states that: “The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.”
Aguilar said this provision limits industrialization only to the agricultural and agrarian sectors, and prevents the government from venturing into other fields not related to these two areas because it could be deemed unconstitutional.
As a result, he said, the Philippines has no choice but to stick to agriculture-related and agrarian-reform based industries like rice milling, fertilizer-making, forestry, and food canning, instead of entering into more lucrative fields like steel-making and machinery manufacturing.
Because many of our Asian neighbors are free from these restrictions in their respective Constitutions, they have long been into major industrialization ventures that helped to jump-start their respective economies, Aguilar said.
Compared with the Philippines that has discouraged the entry of foreign capital as mandated under the Constitution, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore have opened up their economies to foreigners by making investments viable and profitable under their laws.
Citing official data, Aguilar said foreign investments had, over the 1993-2002 period, totaled $37.34 billion in Malaysia; $34.94 billion in Singapore; and $33.09 billion in Thailand.
In contrast, similar investments in the Philippines totaled less than half at just $15.18 billion during the same period, according to a study done by the Asian Development Bank.
Therefore, to bring in billions of dollars of capital into the economy, he said constitutional restrictions limiting foreign ownership in key segments of the economy should be removed.
This can only be done, Aguilar said, by amending provisions in Articles XII (National Economy and Patrimony) and XVI (General Provisions), which restrict foreign investments in the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources; operation of public utilities; and ownership of educational institutions and mass media facilities. (PIA)
Why National Progress is at Stake
Reform of the Economic Provisions of the Constitution
Why National Progress is at Stake
by Gerardo P. Sicat
http://www.aim.edu.ph/media/Economic%20provisions%20of%20Constitution.pdf
Why National Progress is at Stake
by Gerardo P. Sicat
http://www.aim.edu.ph/media/Economic%20provisions%20of%20Constitution.pdf
Committe on National Patrimony and Economic Reforms
2005 Consultative Commission
to propose the revision of the 1987 Constitution
Committee on National Patrimony and Economic Reforms
TRASNCRIPT OF THE MEETING
Monday, 17 October 2005
http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/chacha/National_Patrimony_T0105C3.pdf
to propose the revision of the 1987 Constitution
Committee on National Patrimony and Economic Reforms
TRASNCRIPT OF THE MEETING
Monday, 17 October 2005
http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/chacha/National_Patrimony_T0105C3.pdf
A Test of Resilience to the Philippine Consitution
GLOBALIZATION AND CHARTER CHANGE: A TEST OF RESILIENCE TO THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
By Josephine A. Concepcion *
http://ublawjournal.tripod.com/articles/concepcion1.html
Justice Isagani A. Cruz made it clear.
The constitution must be quintessential rather than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and framework only of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is but the core of the dream that must take shape, not in a twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but slowly 'in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts,' where it will in time develop its sinews and gradually gather its strength and finally achieve its substance. In fine, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full-grown from the brow of the constitutional convention, nor can it conjure by mere fiat an instant Utopia. It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history and dynamism and vitality that will keep it. far from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.1
Constitutions are designed to meet not only the vagaries of contempo-rary events. They should be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances.2 In fact, one of the essential characteristics of a good Constitution is that it must be broad enough to meet future contingencies and apply to divergent needs of its subjects. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods, and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services, and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.3
On the basis of this equality and reciprocity, the government finds reasons to humanize and swing to the millennium buzz word "Globalization". This ushers a new borderless world of business by sweeping away as mere historical relics the traditional modes of promoting and protecting national economies like tariffs, export subsidies, import quotas, quantitative restrictions, tax exemptions and currency controls, replaces the age-old "beggar-thy-neighbor policy" and open up each market to the world with least control from respective states.4
The question is not anymore focused on whether globalization is constitutional or not. A more pressing emphasis must be on how far our Constitution can bend to balance what is truly for Filipinos alone without sacrificing trade agreement as well as foreign relation with other states; of how far it can shield itself from what seems to be an unconscious maneuver of the state affairs in the guise of increased participation as key to domestic growth and prosperity.
This point was, in fact, answered in the case of Wigberto Tañada vs. Edgardo Angara, et. al.5 The Supreme Court concluded that there are enough balancing provisions to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WIG Agreement. Sec. 1 of Art. XII of the Philippine Constitution lays down the basic goals of national economic development, to wit:
Amore equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services for the benefit of the people; and
An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life. With these goals in context, the Constitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism (1) by expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony and in the use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced goods;6 (2) by mandating the State to "adopt measures" that help make them competitive;7 and (3) by requiring the State to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.8 In similar language, the Constitution takes into account the realities of the outside world as it requires the pursuit of a "trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrange-ments of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity"9 and speaks of industries "which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets" as well as of the protection of "Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices."10
The Constitution speaks well of its mandate. Preference must be given to a Filipino in all areas of development. However, this rule admits of certain limitation. The constitutional provision of a "self-reliant and independent national economy" does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investment and services. It contemplates neither "economic seclusion" nor "mendicancy in the international community". 11
This analysis is further enhanced by the principle of pacta sunt ser-vanda. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislation such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. After all, the Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principle of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations."12
Therefore, the issue boils down to one thing. The Philippines is pre-pared to assert its competence in the global market, at least, in the legal aspect, it now becomes moot and academic. With regard to its beneficial point of view, this remains to be seen. Hardly known to many, the provisions of Article XII - National Economy and Patrimony, are treated as incompat-ible to the thrust of globalization by people behind moves to amend the Charter. In fact, this is not the first time this particular provisions became prominent.
A revisit of the Parity Amendment is pertinent. Here, the American citizens were given the same rights as that of the Filipinos in the use exploration and exploitation of the natural resources. These resources shall be open to citizens of the US and to all forms of business enterprise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by US citizens.13
Whatever considerations our lawmakers then had in mind, history has its own justification. However, citizens of the United States and corpora-tions and business enterprises owned and controlled by them cannot acquire and own, save in cases of hereditary succession, private agricultural lands.14The Parity Amendment contemplated alienation of public agricultural lands only.
The basis is Sec. 5 now sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." Under this provision, aliens are qualified to hold or acquire alienable lands of the public domain only in cases of hereditary succession. The phrase "hereditary succession' should be inter-preted to mean intestate succession and not testamentary succession.15
A sale of land in violation of the constitutional prohibition against the transfer of lands to aliens is void. This being the case, the parties should be restored in the position they occupied before the sale took place. In other words, the seller can recover the land from the buyer (alien) who has a right to be reimbursed with the amount of the purchase price. But if the land had been sold by the alien to a Filipino citizen qualified to own and possess it, the sale to the latter cannot be questioned anymore as the land is already possessed by a qualified person.16
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations, qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines" is an expression of public policy to conserve lands for the Filipino people. Therefore, Art. 1416 of the Civil Code, which declares that "when the agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited, and the prohibition by law is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has paid or delivered," is applicable.
Consequently, it is now settled that where a Filipino vendor transfers or assigns a residential or commercial lot to an alien in violation of the KRIVENKO doctrine, although such transfer or assignment is void ab initio, he has now a perfect right to institute an action for recovery or re-conveyance of the property against the alien, or it may be in the nature of a petition for reversion within the meaning of sec. 5 of Rule 92.17
We are satisfied, however, that aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they decide to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
In view of the foregoing, there is NO NEED to amend the Charter insofar as the National Economy and Patrimony is concerned. The Consti-tution has enough built-in provisions to meet the demands of time - that of Globalization and a Nationalistic Economy. To allow 100% foreign equity ownership and alien landholding for the sole purpose of making the Con-stitution attuned to the exigencies of world economic policies would render nugatory the spirit of the Constitution." It should be emphatically stated that the provisions of our Constitution which limit to Filipinos the rights to develop our natural resources and to operate the public utilities of the Philippines is one of the bulwarks of our national integrity. The Filipino people decided to include it in our Constitution in order that it may have the stability and permanency that its importance requires. It is written in our Constitution so that it may neither be the subject of barter nor be impaired in the give and take politics. With our natural resources, our sources of power of energy, our public lands, and our public utilities, the material basis of the nation's existence, in the hands of aliens over whom the Philippine government has no control, the Filipinos may soon find themselves deprived of their patri-mony and living as it were, in a house that no longer belongs them."18 The Constitution is flexible enough. To bend it more would be a virtual maneuver of the same.
* LLB. 2000, Article Editor, UB Law Journal1Quintessential Constitution" by lsagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 Edition, p. 13.2Tañada, et al. vs. Angara, G. R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997.3 ibid.4 Ibid.5 The Lawyers Review, June 30, 1997, p.21.6 Sec. 10, Art XII.7 Sec. 12, Art. XII.8 Sec. 19, Art. II.9 Sec. 13, Art. XII.10 Ibid.11 III Records of the Constitutional Commission, p.252.12 Sec. 2, Art. II., 1987 Philippine Constitution.13 Judge Jorge R. Coquia, The Parity Rights Amendment, 46 SCRA 261.14 Republic vs. Quasha, 46 SCRA 461.15 Ramirez vs. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704.16 Herrera vs. Luy Kim Guan, 1 SCRA 406.17 Philippine Banking Corp. vs. Lui She, September 12,1967.18 Sinco, Vicente G. quoted from the Congress Record, House of Representative, Vol. 1 No. 26 p. 561.
By Josephine A. Concepcion *
http://ublawjournal.tripod.com/articles/concepcion1.html
Justice Isagani A. Cruz made it clear.
The constitution must be quintessential rather than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and framework only of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is but the core of the dream that must take shape, not in a twinkling by mandate of our delegates, but slowly 'in the crucible of Filipino minds and hearts,' where it will in time develop its sinews and gradually gather its strength and finally achieve its substance. In fine, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full-grown from the brow of the constitutional convention, nor can it conjure by mere fiat an instant Utopia. It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history and dynamism and vitality that will keep it. far from becoming a petrified rule, a pulsing living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.1
Constitutions are designed to meet not only the vagaries of contempo-rary events. They should be interpreted to cover even future and unknown circumstances.2 In fact, one of the essential characteristics of a good Constitution is that it must be broad enough to meet future contingencies and apply to divergent needs of its subjects. In other words, the Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist policy. It did not shut out foreign investments, goods, and services in the development of the Philippine economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods, services, and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair.3
On the basis of this equality and reciprocity, the government finds reasons to humanize and swing to the millennium buzz word "Globalization". This ushers a new borderless world of business by sweeping away as mere historical relics the traditional modes of promoting and protecting national economies like tariffs, export subsidies, import quotas, quantitative restrictions, tax exemptions and currency controls, replaces the age-old "beggar-thy-neighbor policy" and open up each market to the world with least control from respective states.4
The question is not anymore focused on whether globalization is constitutional or not. A more pressing emphasis must be on how far our Constitution can bend to balance what is truly for Filipinos alone without sacrificing trade agreement as well as foreign relation with other states; of how far it can shield itself from what seems to be an unconscious maneuver of the state affairs in the guise of increased participation as key to domestic growth and prosperity.
This point was, in fact, answered in the case of Wigberto Tañada vs. Edgardo Angara, et. al.5 The Supreme Court concluded that there are enough balancing provisions to ratify the Philippine concurrence in the WIG Agreement. Sec. 1 of Art. XII of the Philippine Constitution lays down the basic goals of national economic development, to wit:
Amore equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth;
A sustained increase in the amount of goods and services for the benefit of the people; and
An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life. With these goals in context, the Constitution then ordains the ideals of economic nationalism (1) by expressing preference in favor of qualified Filipinos in the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony and in the use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced goods;6 (2) by mandating the State to "adopt measures" that help make them competitive;7 and (3) by requiring the State to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.8 In similar language, the Constitution takes into account the realities of the outside world as it requires the pursuit of a "trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrange-ments of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity"9 and speaks of industries "which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets" as well as of the protection of "Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices."10
The Constitution speaks well of its mandate. Preference must be given to a Filipino in all areas of development. However, this rule admits of certain limitation. The constitutional provision of a "self-reliant and independent national economy" does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investment and services. It contemplates neither "economic seclusion" nor "mendicancy in the international community". 11
This analysis is further enhanced by the principle of pacta sunt ser-vanda. A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its legislation such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. After all, the Constitution "adopts the generally accepted principle of international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations."12
Therefore, the issue boils down to one thing. The Philippines is pre-pared to assert its competence in the global market, at least, in the legal aspect, it now becomes moot and academic. With regard to its beneficial point of view, this remains to be seen. Hardly known to many, the provisions of Article XII - National Economy and Patrimony, are treated as incompat-ible to the thrust of globalization by people behind moves to amend the Charter. In fact, this is not the first time this particular provisions became prominent.
A revisit of the Parity Amendment is pertinent. Here, the American citizens were given the same rights as that of the Filipinos in the use exploration and exploitation of the natural resources. These resources shall be open to citizens of the US and to all forms of business enterprise owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by US citizens.13
Whatever considerations our lawmakers then had in mind, history has its own justification. However, citizens of the United States and corpora-tions and business enterprises owned and controlled by them cannot acquire and own, save in cases of hereditary succession, private agricultural lands.14The Parity Amendment contemplated alienation of public agricultural lands only.
The basis is Sec. 5 now sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution, "Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." Under this provision, aliens are qualified to hold or acquire alienable lands of the public domain only in cases of hereditary succession. The phrase "hereditary succession' should be inter-preted to mean intestate succession and not testamentary succession.15
A sale of land in violation of the constitutional prohibition against the transfer of lands to aliens is void. This being the case, the parties should be restored in the position they occupied before the sale took place. In other words, the seller can recover the land from the buyer (alien) who has a right to be reimbursed with the amount of the purchase price. But if the land had been sold by the alien to a Filipino citizen qualified to own and possess it, the sale to the latter cannot be questioned anymore as the land is already possessed by a qualified person.16
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations, qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines" is an expression of public policy to conserve lands for the Filipino people. Therefore, Art. 1416 of the Civil Code, which declares that "when the agreement is not illegal per se but is merely prohibited, and the prohibition by law is designed for the protection of the plaintiff, he may if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he has paid or delivered," is applicable.
Consequently, it is now settled that where a Filipino vendor transfers or assigns a residential or commercial lot to an alien in violation of the KRIVENKO doctrine, although such transfer or assignment is void ab initio, he has now a perfect right to institute an action for recovery or re-conveyance of the property against the alien, or it may be in the nature of a petition for reversion within the meaning of sec. 5 of Rule 92.17
We are satisfied, however, that aliens are not completely excluded by the Constitution from the use of lands for residential purposes. Since their residence in the Philippines is temporary, they may be granted temporary rights such as a lease contract which is not forbidden by the Constitution. Should they decide to remain here forever and share our fortunes and misfortunes Filipino citizenship is not impossible to acquire.
In view of the foregoing, there is NO NEED to amend the Charter insofar as the National Economy and Patrimony is concerned. The Consti-tution has enough built-in provisions to meet the demands of time - that of Globalization and a Nationalistic Economy. To allow 100% foreign equity ownership and alien landholding for the sole purpose of making the Con-stitution attuned to the exigencies of world economic policies would render nugatory the spirit of the Constitution." It should be emphatically stated that the provisions of our Constitution which limit to Filipinos the rights to develop our natural resources and to operate the public utilities of the Philippines is one of the bulwarks of our national integrity. The Filipino people decided to include it in our Constitution in order that it may have the stability and permanency that its importance requires. It is written in our Constitution so that it may neither be the subject of barter nor be impaired in the give and take politics. With our natural resources, our sources of power of energy, our public lands, and our public utilities, the material basis of the nation's existence, in the hands of aliens over whom the Philippine government has no control, the Filipinos may soon find themselves deprived of their patri-mony and living as it were, in a house that no longer belongs them."18 The Constitution is flexible enough. To bend it more would be a virtual maneuver of the same.
* LLB. 2000, Article Editor, UB Law Journal1Quintessential Constitution" by lsagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 Edition, p. 13.2Tañada, et al. vs. Angara, G. R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997.3 ibid.4 Ibid.5 The Lawyers Review, June 30, 1997, p.21.6 Sec. 10, Art XII.7 Sec. 12, Art. XII.8 Sec. 19, Art. II.9 Sec. 13, Art. XII.10 Ibid.11 III Records of the Constitutional Commission, p.252.12 Sec. 2, Art. II., 1987 Philippine Constitution.13 Judge Jorge R. Coquia, The Parity Rights Amendment, 46 SCRA 261.14 Republic vs. Quasha, 46 SCRA 461.15 Ramirez vs. Vda. De Ramirez, 111 SCRA 704.16 Herrera vs. Luy Kim Guan, 1 SCRA 406.17 Philippine Banking Corp. vs. Lui She, September 12,1967.18 Sinco, Vicente G. quoted from the Congress Record, House of Representative, Vol. 1 No. 26 p. 561.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Proposed changes to consitution's national patrimony provisions
Proposed changes to constitution’s national patrimony provisions
Posted by butalidnl on 6 October 2006
http://butalidnl.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/proposed-changes-to-constitutions-national-patrimony-provisions/#comment-713
Charter change proponents say that their proposed amendments (or “revision”?) to the Philippine constitution will help push national development. In addition to the supposed benefits of a unicameral parliament to national development, the proposals also included changes in the “national patrimony” provisions of the 1987 Philippine constitution. Which specific provisions are they proposing to change?
There are actually three sets of charter change proposals. They are the: House of Representatives proposal, the proposal coming from the Consultative Commission (ConCom), and the People’s Initiative proposal. The most comprehensive set of “national patrimony” changes are put forward in the ConCom proposal, while the Peoples Initiative proposal does not deal with the question directly. Let us start with the ConCom proposal.
The ConCom proposed to change the following national patrimony provisions in the 1987 Constitution:
1. “The state shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices” (Article 12, Section 1) has been deleted.
2. On the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources(including marine wealth). The 1987 Constitution reserves the right to undertake these activities to Filipino citizens or corporations/associations/cooperatives which are 60% owned by Filipino citizens. The proposal is to allow foreigners to do these activities. It is also proposed to increase the period of lease of such lands from 25 to 50 years.
3. On reserving certain areas of investments to Filipino citizens or corporations/associations at least 60% Filipino-owned. The proposal is that the parliament shall merely “provide for limitations on foreign ownership” in these areas of investment.
4. The provision in Article 12, Section 10 that says “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. ” has been deleted.
5. On the operation of public utilities (Article 12, Section 11) . This is now limited to Filipino citizens or “associations or corporations organized under the laws of the Philippines” (actually, there is no real limitation on foreign ownership here!) This is to be deleted.
6. Article 12, Section 13 which states: “The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.” is to be deleted.
The House proposal is generally the same as that of the ConCom for points #1-3 above, except in two details in #2. The House proposal retains the period of lease for public lands at 25 years. It also reserves the exploitation of marine resources to Filipinos.The House proposes to retain the original 1987 Constitution provisions for #4, 5 and 6 above.
As for the Peoples Initiative, it formally does not touch on the national patrimony provisions at all. However, in its Article XIII or “Transitory Provisions” , Section 4, Number 4. it states “Within forty days from the ratification of this amendment, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisionof, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.” With this provision, the Peoples Initiative effectively paves the way for the Constituent Assembly mode of revising the constitution. It also shows that other proposed changes to the constitution, including those on national patrimony, are waiting on the sidelines of the Peoples Initiative.
Thus, in the end, what really matters would be either the House proposal or the ConCom proposal - at least with regards to the national patrimony provisions.
Posted by butalidnl on 6 October 2006
http://butalidnl.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/proposed-changes-to-constitutions-national-patrimony-provisions/#comment-713
Charter change proponents say that their proposed amendments (or “revision”?) to the Philippine constitution will help push national development. In addition to the supposed benefits of a unicameral parliament to national development, the proposals also included changes in the “national patrimony” provisions of the 1987 Philippine constitution. Which specific provisions are they proposing to change?
There are actually three sets of charter change proposals. They are the: House of Representatives proposal, the proposal coming from the Consultative Commission (ConCom), and the People’s Initiative proposal. The most comprehensive set of “national patrimony” changes are put forward in the ConCom proposal, while the Peoples Initiative proposal does not deal with the question directly. Let us start with the ConCom proposal.
The ConCom proposed to change the following national patrimony provisions in the 1987 Constitution:
1. “The state shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices” (Article 12, Section 1) has been deleted.
2. On the exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources(including marine wealth). The 1987 Constitution reserves the right to undertake these activities to Filipino citizens or corporations/associations/cooperatives which are 60% owned by Filipino citizens. The proposal is to allow foreigners to do these activities. It is also proposed to increase the period of lease of such lands from 25 to 50 years.
3. On reserving certain areas of investments to Filipino citizens or corporations/associations at least 60% Filipino-owned. The proposal is that the parliament shall merely “provide for limitations on foreign ownership” in these areas of investment.
4. The provision in Article 12, Section 10 that says “In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. ” has been deleted.
5. On the operation of public utilities (Article 12, Section 11) . This is now limited to Filipino citizens or “associations or corporations organized under the laws of the Philippines” (actually, there is no real limitation on foreign ownership here!) This is to be deleted.
6. Article 12, Section 13 which states: “The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.” is to be deleted.
The House proposal is generally the same as that of the ConCom for points #1-3 above, except in two details in #2. The House proposal retains the period of lease for public lands at 25 years. It also reserves the exploitation of marine resources to Filipinos.The House proposes to retain the original 1987 Constitution provisions for #4, 5 and 6 above.
As for the Peoples Initiative, it formally does not touch on the national patrimony provisions at all. However, in its Article XIII or “Transitory Provisions” , Section 4, Number 4. it states “Within forty days from the ratification of this amendment, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisionof, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.” With this provision, the Peoples Initiative effectively paves the way for the Constituent Assembly mode of revising the constitution. It also shows that other proposed changes to the constitution, including those on national patrimony, are waiting on the sidelines of the Peoples Initiative.
Thus, in the end, what really matters would be either the House proposal or the ConCom proposal - at least with regards to the national patrimony provisions.
ePAN to FilAm PAG
On its first day, ePAN is changed to FilAm PAG or Filipino American Political Action Group
Article XII Philippine Constitution: National Economy and Patrimony
Article XII: National Economy and Patrimony
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustainedincrease in the amount of goods and services produced by the nationfor the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as thekey to raising the quality of life for all, especially the under-privileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment basedon sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, throughindustries that make full and efficient use of human and naturalresources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreignmarkets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprisesagainst unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and allregions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity todevelop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives,and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broadenthe base of their ownership.
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and othernatural resources are owned by the State. With the exception ofagricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not bealienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of naturalresources shall be under the full control and supervision of theState. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it mayenter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharingagreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associationsat least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by suchcitizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and undersuch terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrialuses other than the development of water power, beneficial use maybe the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in itsarchipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of naturalresources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers,lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-ownedcorporations involving either technical or financial assistance forlarge-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms andconditions provided by law, based on real contributions to theeconomic growth and general welfare of the country. In suchagreements, the State shall promote the development and use of localscientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract enteredinto in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from itsexecution.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified intoagricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks.Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified bylaw according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienablelands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienablelands of the public domain except by lease, for a period notexceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-fiveyears, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens ofthe Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, oracquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase,homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, anddevelopment, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, theCongress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the publicdomain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and theconditions therefor.
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, bylaw, the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, markingclearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forestlands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increasednor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide for suchperiod as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging inendangered forests and watershed areas.
Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitutionand national development policies and programs, shall protect therights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral landsto ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary lawsgoverning property rights or relations in determining the ownershipand extent of ancestral domain.
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and alleconomic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals andprivate groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similarcollective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish,and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the Stateto promote distributive justice and to intervene when the commongood so demands.
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private landsshall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands ofthe public domain.
Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of thisArticle, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost hisPhilippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subjectto limitations provided by law.
Section 9. The Congress may establish an independent economic andplanning agency headed by the President, which shall, afterconsultations with the appropriate public agencies, various privatesectors, and local government units, recommend to Congress, andimplement continuing integrated and coordinated programs andpolicies for national development.Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic andDevelopment Authority shall function as the independent planningagency of the government.
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economicand planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve tocitizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations atleast sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens,or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areasof investments. The Congress shall enact measures that willencourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capitalis wholly owned by Filipinos.In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering thenational economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference toqualified Filipinos.The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreigninvestments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance withits national goals and priorities.
Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form ofauthorization for the operation of a public utility shall be grantedexcept to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations orassociations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at leastsixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; norshall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive incharacter or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall anysuch franchise or right be granted except under the condition thatit shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by theCongress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourageequity participation in public utilities by the general public. Theparticipation of foreign investors in the governing body of anypublic utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionateshare in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers ofsuch corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.
Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipinolabor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adoptmeasures that help make them competitive.
Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves thegeneral welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchangeon the basis of equality and reciprocity.
Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of nationaltalents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs,professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilledworkers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State.The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate itstransfer for the national benefit.The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limitedto Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Section 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote theviability and growth of cooperatives as instruments for socialjustice and economic development.
Section 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, providefor the formation, organization, or regulation of privatecorporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may becreated or established by special charters in the interest of thecommon good and subject to the test of economic viability.
Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interestso requires, the State may, during the emergency and underreasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or directthe operation of any privately-owned public utility or businessaffected with public interest.
Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare ordefense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment ofjust compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and otherprivate enterprises to be operated by the Government.
Section 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when thepublic interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of tradeor unfair competition shall be allowed.
Section 20. The Congress shall establish an independent centralmonetary authority, the members of whose governing board must benatural-born Filipino citizens, of known probity, integrity, andpatriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private sector.They shall also be subject to such other qualifications anddisabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shallprovide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit.It shall have supervision over the operations of banks and exercisesuch regulatory powers as may be provided by law over the operationsof finance companies and other institutions performing similarfunctions.Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of thePhilippines operating under existing laws, shall function as thecentral monetary authority.
Section 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance withlaw and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information onforeign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be madeavailable to the public.
Section 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions ofthis Article shall be considered inimical to the national interestand subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided bylaw.
Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustainedincrease in the amount of goods and services produced by the nationfor the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as thekey to raising the quality of life for all, especially the under-privileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment basedon sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, throughindustries that make full and efficient use of human and naturalresources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreignmarkets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprisesagainst unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and allregions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity todevelop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives,and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broadenthe base of their ownership.
Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and othernatural resources are owned by the State. With the exception ofagricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not bealienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of naturalresources shall be under the full control and supervision of theState. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it mayenter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharingagreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associationsat least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by suchcitizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and undersuch terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrialuses other than the development of water power, beneficial use maybe the measure and limit of the grant.
The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in itsarchipelagic waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone,and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of naturalresources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers,lakes, bays, and lagoons.
The President may enter into agreements with foreign-ownedcorporations involving either technical or financial assistance forlarge-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms andconditions provided by law, based on real contributions to theeconomic growth and general welfare of the country. In suchagreements, the State shall promote the development and use of localscientific and technical resources.
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract enteredinto in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from itsexecution.
Section 3. Lands of the public domain are classified intoagricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks.Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified bylaw according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienablelands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands.Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienablelands of the public domain except by lease, for a period notexceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-fiveyears, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens ofthe Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, oracquire not more than twelve hectares thereof, by purchase,homestead, or grant.
Taking into account the requirements of conservation, ecology, anddevelopment, and subject to the requirements of agrarian reform, theCongress shall determine, by law, the size of lands of the publicdomain which may be acquired, developed, held, or leased and theconditions therefor.
Section 4. The Congress shall, as soon as possible, determine, bylaw, the specific limits of forest lands and national parks, markingclearly their boundaries on the ground. Thereafter, such forestlands and national parks shall be conserved and may not be increasednor diminished, except by law. The Congress shall provide for suchperiod as it may determine, measures to prohibit logging inendangered forests and watershed areas.
Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitutionand national development policies and programs, shall protect therights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral landsto ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary lawsgoverning property rights or relations in determining the ownershipand extent of ancestral domain.
Section 6. The use of property bears a social function, and alleconomic agents shall contribute to the common good. Individuals andprivate groups, including corporations, cooperatives, and similarcollective organizations, shall have the right to own, establish,and operate economic enterprises, subject to the duty of the Stateto promote distributive justice and to intervene when the commongood so demands.
Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private landsshall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands ofthe public domain.
Section 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of thisArticle, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost hisPhilippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subjectto limitations provided by law.
Section 9. The Congress may establish an independent economic andplanning agency headed by the President, which shall, afterconsultations with the appropriate public agencies, various privatesectors, and local government units, recommend to Congress, andimplement continuing integrated and coordinated programs andpolicies for national development.Until the Congress provides otherwise, the National Economic andDevelopment Authority shall function as the independent planningagency of the government.
Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economicand planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve tocitizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations atleast sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens,or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areasof investments. The Congress shall enact measures that willencourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capitalis wholly owned by Filipinos.In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering thenational economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference toqualified Filipinos.The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreigninvestments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance withits national goals and priorities.
Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form ofauthorization for the operation of a public utility shall be grantedexcept to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations orassociations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at leastsixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; norshall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive incharacter or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall anysuch franchise or right be granted except under the condition thatit shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by theCongress when the common good so requires. The State shall encourageequity participation in public utilities by the general public. Theparticipation of foreign investors in the governing body of anypublic utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionateshare in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers ofsuch corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.
Section 12. The State shall promote the preferential use of Filipinolabor, domestic materials and locally produced goods, and adoptmeasures that help make them competitive.
Section 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves thegeneral welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchangeon the basis of equality and reciprocity.
Section 14. The sustained development of a reservoir of nationaltalents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs,professionals, managers, high-level technical manpower and skilledworkers and craftsmen in all fields shall be promoted by the State.The State shall encourage appropriate technology and regulate itstransfer for the national benefit.The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limitedto Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Section 15. The Congress shall create an agency to promote theviability and growth of cooperatives as instruments for socialjustice and economic development.
Section 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, providefor the formation, organization, or regulation of privatecorporations. Government-owned or controlled corporations may becreated or established by special charters in the interest of thecommon good and subject to the test of economic viability.
Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interestso requires, the State may, during the emergency and underreasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or directthe operation of any privately-owned public utility or businessaffected with public interest.
Section 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare ordefense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment ofjust compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and otherprivate enterprises to be operated by the Government.
Section 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when thepublic interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of tradeor unfair competition shall be allowed.
Section 20. The Congress shall establish an independent centralmonetary authority, the members of whose governing board must benatural-born Filipino citizens, of known probity, integrity, andpatriotism, the majority of whom shall come from the private sector.They shall also be subject to such other qualifications anddisabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shallprovide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit.It shall have supervision over the operations of banks and exercisesuch regulatory powers as may be provided by law over the operationsof finance companies and other institutions performing similarfunctions.Until the Congress otherwise provides, the Central Bank of thePhilippines operating under existing laws, shall function as thecentral monetary authority.
Section 21. Foreign loans may only be incurred in accordance withlaw and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information onforeign loans obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be madeavailable to the public.
Section 22. Acts which circumvent or negate any of the provisions ofthis Article shall be considered inimical to the national interestand subject to criminal and civil sanctions, as may be provided bylaw.
Fil-Ams' VOICE
For some time now, the Philippine economy is partly insulated from world shocks because of inward dollar remittances from OFWs, now on a consistent range of over $15B a year, and growing. Sixty percent of this comes from or thru North America or the popular aggregation called FilAms. This accounts for about 25% of dollar inflows to the country. The other 75% comes from exports of PEZA zones, the major market of which is still North America. However, our exports pale in comparison to our tiger neighbors. We must ask WHY and from whence, we may be able to separate the chaff from the grain and discuss solutions and positive action plans.
Given our dependence on North America and given the desire of FilAms to advocate "tigerization" of the Philippines, their voices and those of concerned Filipinos must be heard from both divides - by Malacanan, by the Congress, by the Senate, by all branches of the Philippine government and by Washington DC.
Fil-Am PAG is envisioned to be a positive political action group airing issues on Philippine "tigerization". It shall take no media spins or flaks and shall always work positively with all political regimes in both divides. This is a moderated site and acidic remarks shall not be allowed posting.
Posts are encouraged with a memorandum of arguments and solutions (MOAS) format. Posts without these shall be returned and authors shall be encouraged to conform with the MOAS format.
Given our dependence on North America and given the desire of FilAms to advocate "tigerization" of the Philippines, their voices and those of concerned Filipinos must be heard from both divides - by Malacanan, by the Congress, by the Senate, by all branches of the Philippine government and by Washington DC.
Fil-Am PAG is envisioned to be a positive political action group airing issues on Philippine "tigerization". It shall take no media spins or flaks and shall always work positively with all political regimes in both divides. This is a moderated site and acidic remarks shall not be allowed posting.
Posts are encouraged with a memorandum of arguments and solutions (MOAS) format. Posts without these shall be returned and authors shall be encouraged to conform with the MOAS format.
Fil-Am PAG
Fil-Am PAG stands for Filipino American Political Action Group - beamed towards FilAms in North America and Filipinos in the Philippines. It is a formal attempt to look at issues that greatly interest both concerned Filipinos and Filipino Americans in their common advocacy of "tigerizing" the Philippines, as it is indeed long overdue.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT KEEPS US FROM CATCHING UP WITH OUR TIGER NEIGHBORS WHEN WE WERE AHEAD OF THEM IN THE 60's?
The Fil-Am PAG idea incubates from EPIC25@yahoogroups.com, a group of concerned Filipinos and Filipino Americans but Fil-Am PAG is independent of EPIC25.
The views in these posts and the views expressed by authors are their own and does not necessarily reflect the view of Fil-am PAG.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT KEEPS US FROM CATCHING UP WITH OUR TIGER NEIGHBORS WHEN WE WERE AHEAD OF THEM IN THE 60's?
The Fil-Am PAG idea incubates from EPIC25@yahoogroups.com, a group of concerned Filipinos and Filipino Americans but Fil-Am PAG is independent of EPIC25.
The views in these posts and the views expressed by authors are their own and does not necessarily reflect the view of Fil-am PAG.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
