House minority bloc lawmakers divided over proposed economic Cha-cha
MANILA, Philippines — Members of the House of Representatives’ minority bloc have mixed opinions about the proposed amendments to the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
During a press briefing on Wednesday, Marikina Rep. Stella Luz Quimbo, an economist, pointed out that the Philippines’ restrictive economic policies—particularly in the fields of media, education, legal services, and telecommunications, among others—serve as one of the reasons why many foreign businessmen refuse to invest in the country.
“Dahil sa dami ng bawal sa nag-iinvest na dayuhan, naging number one ang Pilipinas sa ASEAN sa pagiging restrictive ng ekonomiya,” Quimbo said.
(Due to a number of restrictions for foreign investors, the Philippines is number in ASEAN in terms of having a restrictive economy.)
“Simple lang po, ‘pag hindi bukas ang ekonomiya, ‘di tayo pupuntahan ng foreign investors. Syempre ayaw nila sa mahirap mag-negosyo. Ang ending? Goodbye, foreign investments,” she added.
(It’s simple, if you don’t open up the economy, foreign investors won’t go here. Of course, they don’t want a complicated business. The ending? Goodbye, foreign investments.)
Quimbo said more foreign investments could improve market competition, technology, and employment in the country.
“Panahon na para tanggalin ang ‘no trespassing sign sa ating bansa. The lifting of restrictive economic provisions is a necessary first step,” Quimbo said.
(This is the time for us to remove the ‘no trespassing’ sign in our country.)
“It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to return to our pre-pandemic trajectory of economic growth,” Quimbo said.
But Gabriela Partylist Rep. Arlene Brosas opposed the timing of her colleagues in pushing for an economic Cha-cha, stressing that the country still grapples with the coronavirus pandemic.
“Sa halip na sumayaw tayo sa salit ng Cha-cha at umasa sa dayuhan, kailangan nating tumindig sa sarili nating paa lalo na’t humaharap tayo sa pandemya,” Brosas said.
(Instead of dancing to the beat of Cha-cha and depend on foreign nationals, we should stand on our own feet especially now that we are facing a pandemic.)
Brosas claimed that in other countries, their growth path was towards a shift to more protectionist measures instead of further trade and investment liberalization, particularly amid the global health crisis.
“We need to break free from the false notion that attracting foreign investments will ensure job generation and economic growth amid the raging pandemic,” Brosas said.
“In fact, this pandemic should teach us that food self-sufficiency, creation of national industries especially for medical supplies and domestic agricultural development are crucial in weathering this health and economic crisis,” she added.
For his part, Ang Magsasaka Partylist Rep. Argel Cabatbat said that while he believes that more foreign investments could be beneficial for the Philippines, the country’s agricultural lands should not be sold to foreign nationals.
“Unang-una, ang dami pa nating magsasaka na walang lupa, tapos hahayaan natin na ‘yung maraming pera ang bumili nito?” Cabatbat said.
(First of all, we still have so many farmers who do not own lands, yet we will just let those who have the money to buy these?)
“Ikalawa, kung bibilhin man nila ito para, sabihin nila, para sa ating food security, hindi rin kami kumbibnsido dahil ‘pag pinasok tayo ng mga banyaga na bibili ng agricultural lands, malamang mga mega-farms ang itatayo niyan,” he added.
(Secondly, if they would buy these lands, let’s say, for food security, we are also not convinced because once foreign nationals buy our agricultural lands, they will most likely create mega-farms.)
According to Cabatbat, mega-farms will not automatically result in job generation because foreign businessmen may be expected to bring in with them the technology.
The House committee on constitutional amendments is currently tackling Resolution of Both Houses No. 2, filed by Speaker Lord Allan Velasco, the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” would be added to the constitutional restrictions that limit the participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities based on their proportionate share in the capital.
The same phrase would likewise be added to provisions saying only Filipino citizens can control, own, and/or lease alienable lands, public utilities, educational institutions, mass media companies, and advertising companies in the country.
Meanwhile, the Senate likewise opened on Wednesday its deliberations on the proposed amendments to the Constitution.
