Bulatlat - The Philippines's alternative weekly newsmagazine

This story was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. VI, No. 1, February 5-11, 2006

Cha-cha for Whom?

The Arroyo administration claims that Charter change will solve the country’s political crisis and create the conditions for economic takeoff. But studies conducted by the Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL) and Ibon Foundation on the revisions being proposed by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments reveal that these will benefit President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, political dynasties and foreign investors to the detriment of the Filipino people.

By Benjie Oliveros
Bulatlat

The Arroyo administration claims that Charter change (Cha-cha) or the revision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution will bring the country out of the political crisis and create the conditions for economic takeoff. But studies conducted by CODAL and Ibon Foundation on the revisions being proposed by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments reveal that these will benefit President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, political dynasties and foreign investors to the detriment of the Filipino people.

Recipe for dictatorship

The political impact on the Filipino people of the proposed revisions is not so much in the shift to the parliamentary form of government but in the power it gives President Arroyo, her would-be-successor, and trapos or traditional politicians.

Cha-cha will not only ensure that President Arroyo finishes her term till 2010, in spite of lingering questions regarding the legitimacy of her administration, it will give her the power over both the executive and legislative branches of government. As incumbent president, she will retain her control and supervision over the ministries, cabinet and local governments. In addition, she will have the power to dissolve the legislature, which she does not have under the current system.

The proposed revisions also made the requirements for impeachment more difficult by increasing the required number for approving an impeachment complaint from one-third of all the members of the legislature to a majority of all members.

Worse, the safeguards against the re-emergence of a one-person dictatorship and the proliferation of political dynasties were deleted in the proposed revisions.

The power of the legislature and the Supreme Court to review the basis for the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and to revoke such proclamation was deleted. Likewise, the provision that states that the Constitution shall be operational even under martial law was deleted.

The basis for the declaration of Martial Law and the coverage of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus were expanded. Under the 1987 Constitution, Martial Law may be declared in case of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it. In the proposed revisions, an “imminent danger” of invasion or rebellion will allow the president to declare Martial Law. The problem is, who determines when the danger of rebellion or invasion is “imminent”? Furthermore, the effectivity of the martial law declaration is no longer limited to the 60-day period assured under the 1987 Constitution.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the suspension of the writ applies only to those judicially charged with rebellion or offenses connected to an invasion. And the person should be judicially charged within three days or be released. These were all deleted in the proposed revisions. A repeat of the 1971 suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, which covered all citizens, will then be a possibility.

These are recipes for a dictatorship. While the 1987 Constitution did not prevent former President Aquino from declaring “total war”, Ramos from appropriating emergency powers, Estrada from launching an all-out-war in Mindanao, and Arroyo from unleashing death squads and violating human rights with impunity, the deletion of constitutional safeguards will embolden the current and future administrations to legitimize another open fascist rule.

Legalization of political dynasties and warlordism

Likewise deleted where safeguards against nepotism and the proliferation of political dynasties.

The provision prohibiting the President from appointing his/her spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity up to the fourth civil degree was deleted. The proposed revisions no longer require Cabinet officials to pass through the Commission on Appointments. And it allows the reappointment of commissioners to constitutional commissions thereby making them more beholden to the president if they desire to be reappointed.

The revisions increased the term of legislators and local government officials to five years and removed the rule on term limits. It also removed the constitutional prohibition on the formation of private armies and paramilitary groups.

The House Committee even had the temerity to propose that government provide “equitable subsidy” to political parties. Since this government subsidy will come from taxes, it will be the taxpayers who will be paying the subsidies of political parties.

While at the same time, it practically removed or rendered weak the party-list system, the only means by which marginalized sectors and groups are represented in the legislature.

While the 1987 Constitution failed to curb nepotism and influence-peddling, political dynasties and corruption, removing these safeguards will only give full play to these evils.

Total sell-out of national patrimony

The House Committee on Constitutional Amendments removed all provisions protecting national patrimony and prohibiting foreign governments, corporations, and individuals from dominating and controlling the political and economic affairs of the country.

It removed the prohibition against the presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilities unless provided for under a treaty. It even made the ratification of treaties easier by lowering the concurrence threshold from 2/3 of Senate to a simple majority of parliament. Considering that a government normally has the support of at least a majority of parliament, the passage of treaties will be unhampered.

The Committee removed all provisions in the 1987 Constitution that disallows foreign corporations from owning land, exploiting the country’s natural resources, operating and controlling public utilities.

These are in line with the globalization thrusts of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization being pushed by the IMF-World Bank, World Trade Organization, and the dominant capitalist countries especially the U.S. government and Chamber of Commerce. They are pushing for the liberalization of all potential fields of investment including public utilities, banking, airline, shipping, capital market, biotechnology, advertising, retailing, and mining. The World Bank is even pushing for the opening up of professional services to foreigners.

The Philippine government is likewise pursuing these policies in the hope of attracting foreign investments purportedly to develop the economy, create jobs, and bring in the much-needed foreign exchange and capital.

But multinational corporations merely engage in assembly and packaging for re-export. For example, electronics firms import 75-90% of their inputs. The same is true for the garments industry. Local cotton and textile firms have gone bankrupt and raw materials for the garments industry are likewise imported. Data gathered by Ibon Foundation revealed that manufacturing’s share in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has steadily declined since 1960. Multinational corporations account for over three-fourths of the total sales of manufacturing corporations in the country’s Top 1,000 corporations.

Studies by Ibon Foundation also reveal that even as foreign direct investments (FDI) increased during the last decade, unemployment has steadily increased to record highs. The 11.8% average unemployment rate last year is the second highest in five decades. It is second only to the 1985 unemployment rate of 12.8%. Add the 4.3 million unemployed to the 4.2 million underemployed last year and the figure reaches a staggering 8.5 million Filipinos either jobless or underemployed. While multinational corporations do create jobs, it also causes the bankruptcy of Filipino corporations who cannot compete with them. And with the liberalization of agricultural imports, even small landowners and farmers go bankrupt.

It may be true that FDI and foreign portfolio investments bring in foreign exchange and capital. But portfolio investments, which constitute 70 percent of foreign capital inflows last year, are flighty. As soon as profit-taking taking opportunities are better abroad, it is pulled out. For example, foreign portfolio investments for the year 2005 resulted in a net inflow of $2.1 billion, more than four times the US$486.8 million total for the whole of 2004. On the other hand, outflows/capital repatriations pertaining to registered foreign portfolio investments amounted to $3.4 billion, twice the $1.7 billion total in 2004.

This means that even as more portfolio investments flowed in last year compared to 2005 (2.5 times more), more money also flowed out of the country. It is worth noting that the massive outflow of portfolio investments is the immediate cause of the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

Foreign capital invested in corporations is more stable. But data gathered by Ibon Foundation reveal that from 1961-1998, foreign investors took out $1.1 billion more than they ever brought in. And this reveals only the official figures. Transfer pricing, or the practice of overpricing raw or intermediate materials or finished goods transferred from the mother company abroad to its local subsidiary, siphons out more dollars than what official figures reveal.

The proposal of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments to remove all restrictions on foreign bases, troops, and facilities will not benefit the Filipino people. The only benefit the country will derive is in the form of military aid, funds, weapons, spare parts, and equipment for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). On the other hand, the country will be dragged into the wars of aggression and hegemonic designs of the U.S. government.

Even with the restrictions provided by the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines was dragged into the U.S. invasion of Iraq making Filipinos working there targets of attack by Iraqi resistance forces. Worse, there is already a continuing presence of U.S. troops in the country in the guise of joint military exercises and civic action activities. And there are already sightings of U.S. troops in combat operations being launched by the AFP. Even now, the Philippines is already being used as a laboratory for U.S. war strategies and as forward operating base for rapid deployment of U.S. Special Forces. The only thing left is for the removal of restrictions for the reestablishment of U.S. military bases in the country.

The Filipino people is already suffering from the impact of the policies of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization in the form of skyrocketing rates of public utilities, exorbitant oil prices, crippling inflation, bankruptcies, unemployment, environmental destruction caused by pollution and mining operations, inaccessibility of social services, and the overall deterioration of the economy. With the removal of all restrictions to foreign capital and goods, the country will be more vulnerable to the super profit-taking greed of multinational corporations. It will intensify the deterioration of local industry and the whole economy, and lead to the worsening impoverishment of the Filipino people.

Cha-cha will only benefit President Gloria-Macapagal-Arroyo, trapos, political dynasties and warlords, and U.S. imperialism. Bulatlat

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.