Do you support Philippine Charter Change?

Yes or no? If so support your answer.

Best argument gets ten points.

Thanks

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    according to Lito Monico Lorenzana

    We need Charter change now.

    The evidence is clear. Our current system, laid down by the 19-year-old Constitution, is not working. It has not delivered the growth we need in our economy.

    Charter change is the way out of poverty. By amending the restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution, we can create jobs and stable incomes for our people.

    Poverty has wrought the land for two decades. It’s our sickness, and we aren’t cured yet. If we do not amend the Constitution now, then when do we want it changed? We cannot wait another decade.

    The debate on Charter change is revolving around the manner of changing the Constitution. In the midst of all this, Charter change opponents seem to be forgetting that we proponents wish foremost to reform the economy—which they also want, going by their actions only a few years back.

    A study conducted by the Asian Development Bank in 2005 shows that one of every three Filipinos lives in poverty, or 30.4 percent of the 82-million population. The main cause of poverty is joblessness and unstable incomes. In the past two decades spanning four administrations, unemployment hovered at 10-11 percent.

    A parallel study by the World Bank shows that a staggering 2.54 million of the total 16 million families, 15.5 percent, subsist on only $1 (P50 or so) a day. This is hardly enough to buy basic food, clothing and shelter, much more essential medicine to stay healthy and adequate literacy to get by.

    Among the recommendations of the Consultative Commission, now promoted by the Charter Change Advocacy Commission, is the lifting of economic restrictions in the Constitution. These restrictions are found in the National Economy and Patrimony (Article XII) and General Provisions (Article XVI), which limit foreign investments in mining, utilities and advertising, and ban foreign ownership of commercial or industrial land, and the media.

    Statistics tell us that the jobless grow in number because our country lacks investment. And the main reason for low investments is the hostility of our Constitution toward foreigners.

    These “nationalist” provisions have brought us nowhere. Look at where we are compared with our neighboring Asian countries. Our neighbors welcome foreign investments. In 1995, 2000 and 2003, Malaysia attracted $4.18 billion, $3.79 billion, and $2.47 billion, respectively, in foreign capital. Singapore got $7.12 billion, $11.4 billion, and $5.63 billion. Thailand enticed $2.07 billion, $2.37 billion, and $1.95 billion. Our country only got $1.48 billion, $1.35 billion, and $319 million. Why, even Indonesia, before the capital flight of the 1987 Asian crisis, was able to prepare with P4.35 billion in foreign capital in 1995; thus, its speedy recovery.

    Let’s admit it: we do not have local capital for large-scale mining or oil drilling, labor-intensive factories, power plants and waterworks, advanced colleges and universities, modern engineering, cinema or entertainment and advertising.

    But if we lift the restrictions on foreigners, investments will pour into mining and oil production, railways and shipping, specialized schools of higher learning, build-operate-transfer roads and ports, electricity and water supply, aircraft and aerospace, movies, broadcast media, and advertising.

    These investments directly will create jobs. Not only that, they will spur allied and support businesses—from small canteens and uniform supplies all the way to heavy equipment and hi-tech computers. That means even more jobs.

    No longer would one of every 10 Filipinos of working age go jobless (four million of the 40 million labor force). No longer would one of every four working Filipinos (25 percent of the workforce) be underemployed or underpaid. We would even be able to welcome back our eight million overseas workers to domestic jobs.

    We can eradicate poverty. We just need to first remove the hostile economic provisions in our Constitution. Then, we must protect our economic gains by laying down a new form of government and structure of the Republic: parliamentary and federal.

    while René B. Azurin says

    The core question around the whole Charter change issue is this: How is power going to be redistributed ? Who will gain power? Who will lose power?

    The principal change proposed by Cha-cha proponents is a shift from the presidential form of government to the parliamentary form. No other change is proposed by the so-called Peoples’ Initiative that only seeks to revise Articles VI (Legislative) and VII (Executive) of the Constitution. In fact, Cha-cha proponents are being disingenuous when they sell Charter change on the basis of its economic benefits when their proposal does NOT in any way deal with the sections in Articles XII and XVI which contain the restrictive economic provisions. Considering this, it is hard not to think that this is not all part of a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive the Filipino people.

    In any event, the proposed shift to a parliamentary system means that the executive power now vested in the President and the Cabinet will be fused with the legislative power now vested in Congress. This combined power will then be wielded by a single body: Parliament.

    Following are seven compelling reasons why we should all be against this:

    First, this fusion of executive and legislative powers in a parliamentary system means that the same set of people decide on the programs of government, appropriate the funds for these programs, and execute them. This means that the built-in control mechanism of having different units act on different parts of the same transaction is lost. Such a system is therefore more prone to abuse and corruption.

    Second, the parliamentary system effectively makes the entire national budget (except for debt servicing and certain fixed expenditures) one huge pork barrel. There is no check for the power of the Prime Minister and his ruling gang to do what they want except to resort to the judicial system, but that assumes that kickbacks can actually be documented.

    Third, the parliamentary system enshrines “horse trading” as the way of governance. Since the government can fall at any time through a no-confidence vote, the tenure of the Prime Minister is unstable and utterly dependent on the votes of the other members of Parliament. This means that the Prime Minister will always be hostage to the demands of every member of Parliament, each one of whom represents special interests.

    Fourth, it is simply not true that “legislative gridlock” is the reason why this country has not been able to keep economic pace with the high-performing economies in our region of the world. Actually, our failure to keep economic pace with our neighbors is a consequence of protectionist economic policies, peace and order problems, graft and corruption, and an ineffective justice system.

    Fifth, no connection has been demonstrated between form of government and economic performance. There are countries with parliamentary governments that are racing ahead of us economically (like Malaysia and Thailand), but there are also countries with presidential systems doing as well or better (like Taiwan and South Korea).

    Sixth, the argument that it is the huge campaign ‘investments’ required by a presidential candidate in a national election that gives rise to graft and corruption should be dismissed as simplistic. This ignores the fact that graft and corruption happens because of a mix of many factors including poverty, greed, the availability of opportunity, and weak law enforcement.

    Seventh, in a parliamentary system, the Filipino people—already wanting in any real power —will be further deprived of the power to vote for their own national leader.

    We began by saying that Charter change is really about the reallocation of power. Who gains? Who loses? In the shift to a parliamentary system, the politicos will gain power. We ordinary citizens will lose what little power we still have.

    for me the 2 have their own point but i certainly agree with René B. Azurin

  • 4 years ago

    sure, little doubt. i'm for shape replace. i desire it is going by using. the rustic's cutting-edge American-form Republican government purely getting corrupted actual. this government device is purely yet another contribution to the ever-becoming colonial mentality interior the Philippines.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, it is on the ruler not some Charter Change.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, because its for the good of our economy.

    Lot of politicians are against it because they think they can't perform graft and corruption to the extent once Cha-cha is implemented.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.