Nograles should heed the 'blinking red lights'

Per Speaker Nograles' logic, the only way to attract foreign investors is to change the restrictive economic provision of the Constitution---a move that obviously calls for Charter Change.

But these are no halcyon days on the economic front. The world is suffering from a global financial meltdown. And experts say, the more exposed a country's economy is to "international capital flows", the more likely it will be affected by crisis that is gripping the world.

"As globalization spread in recent decades, the pace of world economic growth picked up. Open economies, it turns out, can grow faster than closed ones," New York Times noted. "But now, as the financial crisis has turned to an economic one, it appears that those running a closed economy may be in better shape to weather the storm."

The Times added: "Kenneth S. Rogoff, the Harvard economist, noted at the International Monetary Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week that India, which has “comparatively stringent restrictions on international capital flows,” also seemed to have the most optimists and seemed to be in line for economic growth in a year when few countries are.

“Thank heavens for the strong regulatory framework we have in our financial system,” he quoted one Indian corporate executive as saying."


Lest his cure might prove to be worse than the disease, Speaker Nograles should heed the "blinking red lights," as Mr. Rogoff put it.

It's not the Constitution, idiots!

[caption id="attachment_228" align="aligncenter" width="324" caption="Proponents of Cha-cha must be cooking something besides further opening up our economy to foreign investors. (www.bulatlat.com)"][/caption]

If we were to believe our venerable Representatives, the only reason they want to change our Constitution is to further open up our market to foreign investors. No more no less. It isn’t a ploy to extend GMA’s or any other incumbent officials’ terms. By opening up our economy, foreign investments will be flooding in.

“I am asking for an economic provision na 60-40 tatanggalin natin dahil ito palagay ko naiiwan tayo ng ibang Asian countries dahil sila open for foreign investment samantalang tayo limited ang foreign investments natin,” Speaker Nograles, the pride of Davao, was reported to have said. Apparently, he’s trying to allay fears that the administration-sponsored Cha-cha is a pretext to further GMA’s hold on power.

What a noble cause!

But the recent Cha-cha moves provide excellent case study of dogs (read: sleazy Representatives) barking up the wrong tree.

Rex C. Drilon II’s exposition (Cha-cha and foreign investment) said it all: The idea that opening up our economy so foreign investments may flow is a wrong notion. Proof of this is that Philippines has neighbors with far more restrictive economies but whose foreign direct investments are far higher than ours:

The Philippines has a neighbor, a non-English speaking, communist country where there is no freedom of speech nor free press, no religious freedoms, no judicial and legal system as we know it, no code of commerce nor code of corporate governance. It received more than $9 billion in foreign direct investments (FDIs) last year. It is a restrictive economy.

The biggest country in the region with similar sociopolitical and economic environment received $60 billion last year in FDI in spite of human rights violations, use of child labor, tainted products and is probably the world’s biggest violator of intellectual property rights. This year, its FDIs are expected to reach $115 billion. It, too, has a restrictive economy.

On the other hand, we who have been christened as the bastion of Christianity in Asia, praised for our Edsas, proficiency in English etc. only received “a little over $2 billion in 2007 and as of October 2008, we are told we are down 58 percent and will be lucky if we get $1 billion.”

So why is Philippines so aloof to foreign investors?

Our venerable Congressmen want us to believe it’s the Constitutional provision that restricts foreign investors from investing. But people like Rex C. Drilon II thought otherwise. “Corruption, uneven playing field, ineffective governance and leadership, changing rules, no sense of urgency for reforms and a negative country image, among others, are the reasons why.”

Can Cha-cha solve them all?

Sports and politics: The twain sometimes meet

[caption id="attachment_151" align="aligncenter" width="594" caption="Photo Courtesy of www.zimbio.com"][/caption]

Before the fight there was a consensus among boxing analysts and ordinary boxing fans that the Pacquiao-de la Hoya fight was a mismatch. Manny Pacquiao’s speed and age would stand no match against Oscar de la Hoya’s apparent advantages—his height, reach, and experience.

As the events unfolded, however, Pacquiao dwarfed de la Hoya. There were many speculations on the “hows” and “whys” of Pacquiao’s victory. On one hand, there are those who said, rightly or wrongly, that it was scripted, with Pacquiao taking the role of the victor and de la Hoya, the vanquished. On the other hand, there are those who said it was a combination of Pacquiao’s determination, his brilliance in executing his game plan, and his unrelenting faith in God. Whatever, one thing is sure: His victory, then as now, brought yet another pride to the country.

And some benefits, too.

The day of the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match gave everyone a temporary respite from the discouraging political scene in the country. With the House of Representative poised to ram through changes in the Constitution for whatever ends the Representatives have in mind, one can’t help but be thankful for that boxing match. For it was as if the plans to pursue Cha-cha ground to a halt.

While the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match did breathe fresh air into the smothering atmosphere of politics, it did not dispense with politics altogether. Not that some of our Congressmen were there or Lito Atienza having failed to appear in the Senate hearing to defend his department’s (DENR) budget because he watched the fight in Las Vegas. It is that those boisterous exchange of punches; raucous cheers and jeers from the audience; and swollen eyes and bruises de la Hoya earned thereafter, are as much present in boxing as they are in politics.

The political game, as in boxing or any sports for that matter, can get exceedingly dirty and bruising, albeit figuratively. However athletes and politicians play their game, they still have to play by the rules. But with all its similarities, there is one thing that makes politics distinct from sports. In sports, you can’t take both roles; you can never be a player and at the same time a rule maker. In politics, however, you can be both; you can be a player and at the same time a rule maker. Even if, say, a boxer is very much eager to win, he can’t go beyond what is prescribed by the rules. His game plan must constantly be aligned vis-à-vis the rules that govern the game.

That is what makes the political player different from an athlete. If the rules go against them, should they follow? Not necessarily. At least not when they have the means at their disposal to change the rules so that the rules fit their game plan.

Batangas Rep. Hermilando Mandanas’ House Resolution No. 550 is an example. Had it succeeded, it would have postponed the 2010 elections to 2011, thereby extending by one-year the terms of local officials, and by extension, PGMA's. Fortunately, though, it hadn’t.

However, it is only one of the strings of attempts to change the Constitution. It definitely won’t be the last. Expect more in the coming days as the players and rule makers are still out in the wild.

The Consti's primordial intent: A bicameral Congress

Several attempts to amend or revise the Constitution (popularly known in this country as Charter change [Cha-cha]) in the recent past did not fail to raise a howl of protest. From the administration of Ramos to Estrada to Arroyo, Cha-cha as an agenda of every administration never ceased to have a nemesis coming from different sectors—religious, civil society, political opponents, etc. The ones that are underway in the House of Representatives are no exemption.

But aside from Cha-cha itself, the mode of carrying it out is equally problematic. There are three ways to do it as provided by the Constitution: (1) through Constitutional convention (Con-con); (2) through people’s initiative; and (3) through Constituent assembly. The third one is the option the proponents of Cha-cha in the House want to pursue. However, it is also the trickiest because up to today it is still unclear (and the Supreme Court hasn’t decided yet) whether the two chambers of Congress---Senate and House of Representative---vote separately or jointly should they convene as Con-ass to change the Constitution?

To the proponents of Cha-cha in the House, who are staunch allies of GMA, the two chambers should vote jointly. Seen that way, the Senate, which is independent of the House, would be nothing but a mere cog with virtually no influence whatsoever. That is, of course, not what the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended when they deliberately made the Congress bicameral.

The Constitution may be silent on the question at hand—whether the House and the Senate vote jointly or separately—but a “structural interpretation” could shed light on the debate.

In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. said “that the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and three-fourths of all the members of the House taken separately.” The reason being that “Congress is bicameral and a bicameral body votes separately.” Fr. Bernas added:

When the Constitution wants the two houses to vote jointly, the Constitution says so. This it does when Congress is authorized to override a declaration of martial law. And even when Congress can act only in joint session, as it is the case when called to declare the existence of a state of war, the Constitution still commands that they vote separately. Similarly, under the 1935 Constitution, when Congress could propose amendments only if assembled in joint session, the Constitution commanded that they vote separately.

The reason for separate voting is simple: voting jointly, unless authorized as an exception by the Constitution, destroys the bicameral character of Congress. Thus, the silence of the constitutional text on the manner of voting must be interpreted in the light of the bicameral structure of Congress. Structural interpretation is one of the modes of constitutional construction.

One of the attempts to effect constitutional change comes from Rep. Mikey Arroyo, the President’s eldest son. His is an attempt to amend the Constitution through Constituent Assembly with the Senate and the House voting jointly, not separately.

What the Constitution put asunder let no fools join together.