When we talk about Charter Change, we Filipinos tend to correlate it with Marcos or Gloria Arroyo.

The people who support

Charter Change are automatically called “Pro-Arroyos”, “Trapos” and what not.

Most of us Filipinos believe that Charter Change is not needed but rather, a change of politicians or a change of culture. But
when will this happen? Next year? 5 years later? I believe that in order for this to happen, we will need an enabler. This
enabler is called “Charter Change”. It may not be the magic solution to the ills of our society but it is an enabler, a stepping
stone to a true progressive society.

The question that you’re probably asking is why do we even need to change the constitution? It’s just 20+ years old. It allows
freedom and equality through the bill of rights. It allows people suffrage so why change it? Let’s be honest, have you read the
rest of the constitution BESIDES the Bill of Rights or the Constitutional Preamble? Whenever I ask the common Filipino of let’s
say “what are some of the contents of Article XII, Sections 1 to 22 of the 1987 Constitution?” They just don’t know. It seems
that I have to admit that most of us Filipinos are uninformed of some of the important aspects of the constitution and what our
current constitution lacks.
Step 1 – Economic Liberalization:
One of the important aspects of the constitution that needs to be reformed is Article XII of the constitution which is about the
economy and patrimony of our country. According to Section 2 of Article XII, foreigners are only allowed to have a capital of
until 40%. The 60% must be owned by a Filipino Citizen. This is of course too restrictive for the Foreign businessman/woman
who wishes to open a company in the Philippines and is usually one of the reasons why Foreigners prefer our neighbors over
our country regardless of our proficiency in the English Language and/or a large amount of manpower this country is capable
of.

The 1987 Constitution does not even have an “Anti- Trust Law” or laws that prohibits monopolies and encourage competition
between businesses. Monopolies are unhealthy for any country especially since that Monopolies have tendencies of giving
unfair and unsatisfied services. One example is Meralco owned by the powerful Lopez family. We Filipinos in the NCR have no
choice but to pay unusually high electricity prices because they are the ONLY electricity distributor in the NCR. So regardless if
they raise the amount, we Filipinos are only given two choices; pay or have no electricity. There’s nothing we can do because
they are the only source of electricity we have in the capital. The only way these electricity prices can get lowered without
resorting to executive degrees is if another electricity distribution company competes against them due to competition.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any local businessman that wants to and the only way is if a Foreign Businessman who has the
money and skills does such.
Unfortunately Section 11 of the same Article restricts these Foreign Businessmen to do such:

“Section 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted
except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least
sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens; nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive
in character or for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted except under the
condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress when the common good so requires. The
State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of foreign investors in the
governing body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their proportionate share in its capital, and all the executive
and managing officers of such corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines.”
The Filipino Oligarch is protected by these protectionist laws and we get the likes of Meralco, Davao Lights etc. with unusually
high electricity rates.
Protectionism thanks to Article XII has kept Foreign Businessmen and women who are capable of creating jobs in this country,
away. Due to this, the Philippines is now among the most restrictive in foreign investments. If the President wants to
encourage more foreigners to invest here, he must remove the 60/40 provisions, allowforeigners to own land and own public
utilities. Otherwise, oligarchs like the Lopezes will always torment us Filipinos with unfair services. Our neighboring
countries allow foreigners to invest without much restrictions and the benefits can be shown in their country like Singapore
and Malaysia.
One thing that some Filipinos state why foreigners should not be allowed to own land in this country is because “we are a
small country”. This argument is not thought through because countries smaller than the Philippines like Belgium,
Netherlands, Monaco and Luxembourg allow foreigners in their country to own land. Even Singapore allows foreigners to own
land. Of course, in Singapore, you will need to get a permission first but usually, business owners easily get this permission.

Another so called argument is that “foreigners will bully our local businessmen and will easily crush them in the world of
business.” This is not necessarily true unless the reason your business thrived is because of protectionist laws. I do not believe
that all local businessmen are oligarchs. One example who I think isn’t an oligarch is John Gokongwei who owns Jack & Jill. His
products are very popular abroad in which he faces competition from other businessmen. Gokongwei also supports charter
change in which his opinions are provided in this link:

Step 2 – Decentralization of the Capital and More Representation of the Provinces, or in other words, Federalization:
Whether we acknowledge it or not, our constitution is overly-centric on Manila. It lacks laws that represent
other regions more fully. It has no laws that encourage the spread of our economy to the other parts of the country which is
one of the reasons why Manila is over-congested; because there aren’t much job offers in the other regions which is why our
regional countrymen are forced to migrate to Manila which is becoming more congested everyday.
We are a multi-ethnic country so the need for adding federal aspects to our constitution is purely common sense.
Federalization is key to spreading economic wealth throughout the country by encouraging regions to compete one another
with barely any help from the federal government. It gives more representation for our local brothers and sisters who want to
voice out their opinions about the country like the Cebuanos, Ilocanos, Bangsamoros etc.
Federalization will also solve the situation between the MILF and the Philippines due to the fact since 2008, the MILF has quit
its claim for an independent state and instead, would prefer an autonomy similar to a US State. So federalization will
encourage more peace in Mindanao. Through federalization, “Imperial Manila” will be no more.

As for the Filipinos who claim that federalization will just make warlords “more powerful”, this is actually false. The so called
warlords are only powerful because of the money they get from the national budget. Through federalization, they will only
have a federal budget. Overall, even if they steal the money from the federal budget, this will still not be enough to supply their
arms and payments for their private armies due to that fact most of the revenues come from businesses in their region. And
since businessmen will be turned off in investing in a “chaotic region”, these warlords will be forced to create order just so
businessmen will invest. These so called warlords will actually be forced to do their job. Job creation means money for the
common Filipino; money for the common Filipino means they can send their children to school; school equals education and
an enhancement to intellectual ability. Knowledge is power and the common Filipino will be more awakened and probably, a
means to a change of politicians.
Of course, when it comes to federalization, I prefer a Quasi-Federal state over a Full Federal state so that the ability to secede is
impossible. But why will they secede in the first place if they’re well represented in the government and their economy is
booming? Federalization removes some form of corruption, gives a better representation to the regions which enhances the
unity of our nation. The adding of federal aspects is probably the easiest to convince the common Filipino because our regional
countrymen will probably support something like this.

It even had the support of our current president (President Noynoy) when he was a Senator: It baffles me though why he
refuses to add or change some aspects of the constitution today when he himself used to be an advocate.

Step 3 – Shift to a Parliamentary and Unitary System:

This is the most controversial aspects of constitutional reform I support. For one, just supporting a shift to a Westminister
Parliamentary System will give you the label of a “trapo” or a supporter of “trapos”, a supporter of dictatorships, corruption
and what not. I cannot fully blame my Filipino countrymen because they were implanted by this idea from the mainstream
media like ABS-CBN. I believe that the majority of our countrymen can still be convinced why a shift to a parliamentary system
is more important by letting them hear the side of charter change advocates.

More and more countries are actually moving from a presidential System to a parliamentary system. Turkey became a
Parliamentary form of governance after President Ataturk’s reign on the country. Germany was semi-presidential before
World War 2; it switched to a full [arliamentary form of governance after the war. Japan switched to a British style
constitutional monarchy with a full parliamentary system after World War 2. The same thing happened with Moldova and
Lebanon in which both of these countries switched from a presidential System to a parliamentary System. Heck just recently,
countries like Kyrghizstan and Ukraine just approved on switching to a parliamentary system.
Parliamentary systems are more superior than presidential systems because it is more stable, efficient, accountable, flexible,
more issues and policies-centric, more party-based which makes it a superior system. Our current presidential system
encourages popular figures over competent figures because our electoral system is so chaotic, that it becomes a popularity
contest with the largest wallet rather than a battle of merits and competency. Our presidential system doesn’t even have a
“run-off” thus, encouraging plurality cotes which is of course, bad for the leader.

In a presidential system, politicians are very difficult to remove which is why countries under a presidential system like our
country is always plagued with coup d’ etats, assassination attempts and rallies because of the difficulty to remove officials like
the president. In a parliamentary system, there is the vote of no confidence which easily removes the prime minister without
the problems of gridlocks or resorting to coups. Parliamentary systems can also dissolve and change the entire parliament
through re-elections if one wishes to change the politicians in the legislative branch

Presidential systems are unhealthy for a “democracy” because the President is too powerful. The president can pardon
anyone, give someone a position in the government, use the pork barrel to force the lower house to ally with the
administration and what not. In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is only considered first and the head of the
government but overall, will still need the permission of the parliament when it comes to legislature. One must also be part of
the parliament to have a position in cabinet. This eliminates some forms of “bayad utang”

Presidential systems are easily corruptible because “trapos” and “oligarchs” with self-interests only need to influence the
president to control the administration. In a parliamentary system, regardless if they’re able to influence the prime minister,
he/she is only considered first. People with vested interests would need to convince 50%+1 of all parliament seats which
makes corruption in the parliamentary system more difficult.

Presidential systems slow down progress because due to the separation of powers, it encourages gridlocks and has a less
superior form of checks and balances. Gridlocks are almost impossible to happen in a parliamentary system because the
executive and legislative branch is united in the parliament. The administration in a parliamentary system cannot pass a law
without the the awareness of the opposition. Checks and balances through a parliamentary system are based on a “shadow
cabinet” ran by the opposing party. Each minister in the administration cabinet has his/her own counterpart(Ex: Minister of
Education’s counterpart is the Shadow Minister of Education and so on. Even the prime minister has his own counterpart.)
There is also a thing known as “question time” in a parliamentary system once a week were the prime minister and his cabinet
must answer all of the questions given by the opposition. The administration can’t choose not to answer the questions
provided by the opposition. The parliamentary system has overall, a more superior form of check and balances which lessens
corruption and has more transparency. Oppositions in a parliamentary system even give alternatives to policies that it does
not agree with the administration in a parliamentary system.
Presidential systems do not encourage progress because of term limits. 6 years is too long for an incompetent official to rule
and too short for a competent official to improve the country. Parliamentary systems on the other hand rely on the relative
easiness of removing officials in the government rather than term limits. This allows the administration in a parliamentary
system to continue its programs and kick out incompetent officials.

The parliamentary system encourages competent officials to rise and get seats in the government rather than letting
incompetent “trapos” win due to its superior electoral system. Citizens under a parliamentary system vote by party rather
than individuality which removes name calling and the battle of “who has the biggest wallet.” Since creating an administration
requires getting majority of the seats. Parties are sometimes forced to create coalitions. Presidential systems encourages
separation while parliamentary systems encourages coalition and unity.

Why not culture change instead of system change?:

Changing the charter is of course not the silver bullet that turns the Philippines instantly into a progressive country. The GDP
of the country will not instantly shoot up when the constitution is changed nor will crime be instantly dissolved. But since it is
an enabler, it will create a road leading to a Philippines with a high GDP rate and less crime.

Some people argue that our culture and/or character must be changed first. Of course, this is easier said than done. We
humans tend to change only if the environment is changed which is the system. System and culture goes hand in hand. An
example of this is the sport known as “football”. As a football player, the game play itself forces team mates to cooperate due to
the size of the foot ball field which makes it hard for players to run the entire length, the number of players existing in the field
which forces the football player to cooperate with its team mates and the existence of defenders and goal keepers. Same with
football, systems enables people to change because of their environment. Another example is when a typical Filipino goes to a
country like Singapore. He/she suddenly follows the law because of surveillance, competent police officials and what not. Of
course, Singaporean police officials are competent because of the system they’re under in which it has random audits,
sufficient pay etc. which is all under the system instead of culture. Singapore is a leading example of what our country can be.
It was like the Philippines during the 60s with the same ills we are experiencing today. To those who argue that Singapore is
easily managed because it is small, there is an old Chinese proverb:

“A sparrow may be small but it has all the vital organs ”

And another thing, Singapore does not have its own natural resources which makes it difficult for a country to prosper without
sufficient planning. A lot of countries rely on its natural resources for its income. Singapore did not have this and was forced to
industrialize and change its system.
Closing Statements:
Changing the system is the easiest way for us to realize a Philippines we can be proud of even more. And another thing, only 4
presidential democracies were able to last for more than 40 years. The rest were turned into chaos and/or dictatorships. The
reasons provided in this article is why charter change is important. Let us create a new renaissance in this country. We
Filipinos want to improve this country and I believe this is an enabler to that improvement we wish so much to happen. We
must act now before it’s too late.

And a word of advice, try to make your news sources and information more varied. Don’t just stick to one source like the
mainstream media.

Two local business groups on Wednesday expressed their support for amending certain economic provisions in the
Constitution, but said these changes should be made through a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) instead of a Constitutional
Assembly (Con Ass) preferred by lawmakers in the House of Representatives.

Edgardo Lacson, president of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), said allowing legislators to propose
amendments to the Constitution by adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to the provisions they wish to
change will “degrade” the Charter and reduce it to the level of an ordinary piece of legislation.

Representatives from ECOP and the Philippine Association of Local Service Contractors (PALSCON) presented their views on
Charter Change (Cha Cha) during the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments’ hearing on House Speaker Feliciano
Belmonte Jr.’s proposal to amend the Constitution.

House Resolution No. 1 seeks to amend the following articles of the 1987 Constitution: Article II or the declaration of state
principles and policies, Article XII on national economy and patrimony, and Article XVI which contains sections on foreign
ownership.

In his proposal, Belmonte inserted the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" to certain portions of the Constitution to
indicate that the current restrictions will remain in place until Congress acts to amend them.

Lacson warned that amending the Constitution through a Con Ass might lead to instability in the future since lawmakers in
succeeding Congresses might reverse the changes made by lawmakers in the current Congress.

“[While] ECOP expresses its full confidence in the integrity and competence of the present Congress… we suggest that a Con
Con be held with elected members [from the people]. This will promote participatory democracy and put restraint to any
excess that might be made by any future Congress,” Lacson said.

Under Belmonte’s resolution, the amendments to the Constitution will be approved if the proposal garners three-fourths vote
in the Senate and the House separately.

PALSCON president Boots Guerrero said leaving Congress to make amendments to the Constitution “might open the
floodgates” for the passage of laws that might adversely affect local workers.

“[Having lawmakers] insert the phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ is unsettling to us and it may open the floodgates
[for the passage] of laws that can negatively impact the the country’s labor sector,” he said.

Guerrero added that the Philippines might be perceived as not being as competitive as other Southeast Asian countries if
lawmakers move to open up more industries to the entry of foreign workers.

This was also the sentiment echoed by Atty. Antonio Abad, the legal counsel for the Coordinating Council of Private
Educational Associations (COCOPEA), who said a Con Ass might reduce the Charter to a statute that can be amended again in
the future.
“We’re afraid of the phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ because this means the law can be amended anytime by any
Congress. This is dangerous because the economic provisions can always be subject to change,” he said.

But former Congressman and former Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, now the chairman of the group Think Tank Inc., said
it will be difficult for lawmakers to change the economic provisions in the future since the proposed amendments must be
supported by “an overwhelming amount” of facts and other pieces of evidence.

He threw his support behind Belmonte’s Cha-cha proposal, saying Congress should be given the flexibility to make changes to
the Constitution.

“The most practical way to amend the Constitution will be through Speaker Belmonte’s resolution…. the flexibility of allowing
congress make changes is more practical.

"There are situations now that may be usually effective and relevant, but they might change many years from now. The
flexibility of allowing Congress to make changes [to the Constitution] will be more practical than embedding them in the
Constitution," he said.

The Makabayan bloc in the House earlier warned that amending the Constitution will “spell doom” for the Philippines since it
will pave the way for foreigners to increase their ownership of lands and private corporations.

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, however, said the public must assume “in good faith” that lawmakers in any Congress will craft
legislation benefiting the country.

“We [should] always assume that legislators will make laws for the benefit of the people. With the growing changes and fast-
paced nature of the economy, legislators should have the right to amend economic provisions for the good of the country,” he
said. — ELR, GMA News