I agree that some of the economic provisions of the 1987

Philippine Constitution particularly under Articles XII pertaining to

our natural resources and disposition of lands, XIV pertaining to
foreign participation in educational institutions, and XVI on mass
media and advertising are restrictive and prevent the realization
of and seem to contradict the State Policy embodied under
Section 9, Article II. However, this does not entail disregarding
Section 19 of the same Article; hence, an amendment of the cited
provisions must be done with care.

Status Quo
Recent facts and figures, consistent with econometric findings
from years 2001 onwards, would show that the Philippines has
very low rates of Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) as compared to
the other ASEAN countries. This means that we get less capital to
fuel the demands of our developing economy.
Although the
numbers and statistics are not entirely conclusive but rather
indicative of our nations dour foreign investment atmosphere,
this may prove truer in succeeding years if we do not adapt to
rapidly changing times.
While it may be known that the
Philippines has one of the fastest growing economies in Asia, this
apparent increase in wealth is not inclusive of the Filipino people
and only a very few sector of society benefit.
Poverty,
unemployment, inadequate social services, inferior public utility
services, and poor infrastructure development are still very
prominent in spite of the highlighted economic growth. An
environment highly favorable to FDIs would greatly be a boon to
these issues, and one major barrier that keeps our country from
realizing this lies within our restrictive Constitutional mandates.
Corruption and a disheveled political system are among the other
factors that deter FDIs; however, these are to be tackled in
another discussion. Constitutional amendment shall be the focus
in this essay.

Necessity of Amendment
In a global community, we need to welcome FDIs to stimulate our
economic growth, which would likewise address earlier
highlighted societal problems. However, how far should we go in
amending our Constitution? There are of course dangers and
downsides in changing our fundamental law, and various groups
have already raised their concerns and opposition claiming that a
reform of the political system is what we need instead of a
Constitutional amendment. They do have a good point; however,
that should be in conjunction with other measures, such as
possibly amending certain provisions of the Constitution.
We have to acknowledge that a Constitution, though having the
privilege of permanency, must likewise be tempered with
flexibility in order to best serve the people for whom it was
created. Thus, it must adjust to changing times. Although an
amendment of the economic provisions of the Constitution wont
magically solve our economic issues, it will definitely address the
area on FDI, as it is among the major factors that deter foreign
investments.
We have a country rich in natural resources yet we remain poor.
We have millions of young minds eager to learn yet our quality of
education is below par. We have massive untapped manpower
that can be translated to economic gains for all, yet we have very
high unemployment rates. We have mass media corporations
controlled by a few oligarchs, operated only to benefit a few and
serving less its purpose to keep the citizenry ahead and aware of
the changes and developments that the world has to offer. As
such, amending the economic provisions under Articles XII, XIV,
and XVI are in order.

Benefits
If we allow more foreign participation and involvement in the
exploration, development, and utilization of our natural resources,
we can avail of the foreign investors technological know-hows
and strategies in properly locating, safely extracting, and
efficiently managing and utilizing our natural resources. For
decades we have maintained near-absolute control over our
natural resources, operation of businesses, grant of franchise to
business entities, and regulation of profitable operations. In spite
of our nationalistic policies, we are lagging behind because we
cannot sustain our ever-growing population and we are failing to
adjust to the rapidly changing global economy. We can neither
simply let small-scale miners run rampant and unregulated
destroying the environment, nor let huge corporations illegally
backed by foreign entities due to legal restrictions run major
mining operations. When we allow for a more liberal disposition
of our natural resources and lands, we can create a more
transparent layout where these operations may better be
regulated and of course with the Filipino people at its forefront in
spite
of
a
significantly
larger
foreign
involvement.
Consequentially, this would stimulate development of our
industries, our infrastructures, our standards of living, and our
quality of life.
If we allow more foreign participation and involvement in our
educational system and mass media, we open up better
opportunities to our youth. The fear of losing our culture and
national pride is a fear always imagined but never realized, for in
spite of our peoples exposure to colonization and globalization,
we have remained patriotic. If we were to allow the more
advanced educational systems of countries such as Japan,
Germany, Australia, or the United States of America to be
introduced and incorporated in our educational system, this would
force our homegrown learning system to compete and thus

improve. We allow this with the future of our next generation in

mind, and this would not become possible if we maintain the
restrictive nature of the provisions of our constitution under
Article XIV. Better educated constituents mean higher skill levels
that would attract foreign investors to tap into our manpower.

Practicability
As pointed out by parties who are in favor of the amendment, and
as further put forth by House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte in RBH
No. 0001, inserting the phrase UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED
BY LAW in certain parts of the economic provisions under Articles
XII, XIV, and XVI would lessen the restrictions. They propose that
this ought to be done via Constituent Assembly. However, I would
humbly disagree with these modes of proposition. Personally, I
think this would grant the Congress too much leverage in
designing laws that may defeat the ultimate purpose of the
Constitution. I do agree with the amendment of the above-cited
provisions of the Constitution, but I repeat that such must be done
with care and due consideration, and not merely inserting the
phrase UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. Moreover, a
Constitutional Convention would be a better option, to encompass
other proposed amendments to the Constitution that have been
introduced in the past aside from those that target the economic
provisions. In effect, I would agree with the amendment of the
economic provisions of the Constitution as a part of a large-scale
revision of our Fundamental law, which to my modest mind, has
grown antiquated and incapable of addressing present era and
that which is to come.