Fil-Am PAG Directions

Fil-Am PAG outlined current and immediate past materials on Article 12 of the Philippine Constitution to establish basis. Among the materials included were transcripts of meetings of the Committe on National Patrimony and Economy. Hence, readers are transported inside that session were it was shown that in general, there is a positive inclination to consider what we espouse.

Surprisingly, even the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines supports changing Article 12. Proposed changes were captured from other blogs also. An AIM speech by Girardo Sicat in favor of changing Article 12 was also highlighted. There is even a report from the Philippine Development Forum's Working Group on Growth and Investment Climate participated by mainstream businessmen like Don Jaime Zobel de Ayala among others, who needs no introductions.

But since Fil-Am PAG espouses mainstream politics and advocates critiques not via short smarty quips but via Memorandum of Arguments and SOLUTIONS, on the premise that its webpresence shall be read by policy makers and taken in a positive context, it shall remain rooted to such strategy. We can discuss less formal quips here in EPIC25, for example. But, Fil-Am PAG should become as trustworthy to be read in a joint session of Congress - if it would mature and have that aspirations in the future.

We have read a lot of negative statements espousing retention in toto of Article 12 or retention partial. Most of them, however, are not as eloquent as the one made by Justice Isagani Cruz in the article A Test of Resilience for the Constitution. Hence, that was the only one posted in Fil-Am PAG.

Fil-Am PAG has closed its academic presentation on other articles as it feels it has enough basis material and the others are just redundant noise. It is now time for everyone else to post their Memorandum of Arguments and SOLUTIONS, pros or cons.

As everyone else, the administration, mainstream politicians and mainstream businessmen seem to be aligned with what we espouse there is nothing else perhaps we should do but wait. In short, they have jumped the gun on us already demonstrating deep concern for the Philippines' growth and whatever we add if not of equal eloquence would just be redundant noise, tinkling cymbals.

What is derailing these right now is the widespread perception that any changes in the constitution (Article 12 included) is synonymous to the infamous cha cha, or con con, con ass, synonymous to the president's alleged wishes to perpetuate herself in power. This is where it stopped. Who is to blame? Civil Society, that chic group that we are all dying to be identified with as identification to it is social climbing that needs no apologies as it retains social relevance. Hmmp! Certainly, it would be political suicide for the president to push the issue. We, civil society, do have the penchance to shoot ourselves on the foot!



And yet, Fil-Am PAG also cannot be bullied into a one-sided addition to the political noise that already have consensus. Civil Society, on the other hand, must walk their talk and not just talk their talk.


That being settled, we have to look at OTHER causes why the Philippines is not yet tigerizing.

One of these causes is the issue of debt, worldwide debt for that matter. In the Philippines, payment on INTEREST (that word again!) is the single biggest item in the national budget. In 2003, it ate up more than 28% share of the budget. The following year, allocations for interest payment took up more than 33% of the budget - bigger than allocations for all social services combined.

In 2004, actual payments on interest and principal combined exceeded the total tax collections at 100.6%. This represents 86.2% of national government revenues (tax and non-tax) for the year. In 2005, it may have been 85% of total revenues also. This means that only 15% of NG revenues can be spent on everything else. HOW DO YOU RUN A COUNTRY WITH THAT and the Holier than the Pope Civil Society breathing down your neck? Add the league of local governments advocating federalization (including budget).

An opening line was earlier posted, i.e., Interests, WHAT KEEPS US RICH WHAT KEEPS US (AND OUR COUNTRY AND THE REST OF THE WORLD) POOR.

The next punch is to analyze advocacies on dealing with debt. And here is an opening proposition critiquing debtor nations:

Debt is an efficient tool. It ensures access to other peoples’ raw materials and infrastructure on the cheapest possible terms. Dozens of countries must compete for shrinking export markets and can export only a limited range of products because of Northern protectionism and their lack of cash to invest in diversification. Market saturation ensues, reducing exporters’ income to a bare minimum while the North enjoys huge savings
— Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt, (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), pp. 143, 187, 235

[I]f a society spends one hundred dollars to manufacture a product within its borders, the money that is used to pay for materials, labor and, other costs moves through the economy as each recipient spends it. Due to this multiplier effect, a hundred dollars worth of primary production can add several hundred dollars to the Gross National Product (GNP) of that country. If money is spent in another country, circulation of that money is within the exporting country. This is the reason an industrialized product-exporting/commodity-importing country is wealthy and an undeveloped product-importing/commodity-exporting country is poor. Developed countries grow rich by selling capital-intensive (thus cheap) products for a high price and buying labor-intensive (thus expensive) products for a low price. This imbalance of trade expands the gap between rich and poor. The wealthy sell products to be consumed, not tools to produce. This maintains the monopolization of the tools of production, and assures a continued market for the product. [Such control of tools of production is a strategy of a mercantilist process. That control often requires military might.]
— J.W. Smith, The World’s Wasted Wealth 2, (Institute for Economic Democracy, 1994), pp. 127, 139.


And so Fil-Am PAG need not beam its banter only on the Philippines and the administration. It must also allow consensus and bright ideas on how to discuss debt and how can David twist Goliath's hand and hit the Illuminatis right on the eye - that we, too, are part of the godhead.

And so must we eat cake and let Rome burn?