Josiah Lance B. Bautista January 5, 2015 WFV Position Paper Missing the Point As a human is a collection of organs, so can a nation be thought of as a collection of working parts. We hav e brain th at coordi nates the se organs, a heart th at pumps blood and n utrients, a s a nation has a government that directs it, an economy that satisfies its cit izens‟ needs. We have emotions and things we want to become, as nation has its patriots and national goals. And as no human is complete without a soul, so is no nation complete without a Constitution. The Constitution is the soul of a nation. Making changes to the Constitution is therefore a precarious move that can only be done after enough research and consultation–between the brain (the government), and the body (the people). Late August 2014 the plenary debates began in the House of Representatives, deliberating on the Resolution of Both Houses No. 1 (RBH1). RBH1 is a proposal to append the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to several sections in Articles XII, XIV, and XVI of the Constitution. If it is added, it will allow the legislative branch to make contracts with foreign investors, allowing them to own pieces of Philippine land for developing their businesses. The proponents, headed by House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. believe that lifting our bans on foreign involvement in the economy will attract more investors to the country; subsequently, the stronger inflow of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) will cause a boost in our GDP–towards economic growth. Of course, the proposal has drawn opposition –particularly from Congressman Walden Bello, who claimed that it was unnecessary. He pointed out that the government should focus on other matters first. Much controversy has been generated –will editing the nationalistic provisions barring the 100% ownership of Philippine land by foreign entities really lead to economic growth? After all, improving the Philippine standard of living has been part of a long-time effort by government officials –and amending our Constitution‟s strict bans on foreign ownershipof lands has long been asserted as the only way to do it. Certainly, this isn‟t the first time such arguments have been put forth. To answer this question, we must tackle the proposal itself. Why change the Constitution –does the problem really lie there, as Belmonte and co. claim? We must examine their reasoning behind it –will removing the restrictions and opening up our lands really attract more investors? And if it does, will having more investors actually lead to an increase in FDI? To take matters further, will the Philippines as it is now, actuallybenefit from an increase in FDI? It is important to keep in mind, however, that the addition of “unless otherwise provided by law” to the affected sections does not grant immediate ownership of land to foreigners –rather, it grants
