Ignorance is the mother of poverty.  Fear its father. — Paul Gongora Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less. —Marie Curie

Marcos ghost hovers over the whole discourse on Charter Change.
The mere mention of the Marcos regime brings back harrowing memories of injustice, tyranny, and wanton plunder for millions and millions of Filipinos who lived through those trying times.

Strong words and concepts — Martial Law; Marcos cronies; 1081; hidden wealth; Interim Batasan Pambansa — created deep-seated fears and insecurities that affect our decision-making today whenever we talk about foreign investments, elections, and now, change of government, economic liberalization, and Constitutional reforms.

We ratified the 1987 Constitution as a sign of our freedom from oppression and faux democracy.  It has been the symbol of the end of torment and terror.

The 1987 Cory Constitution was meant to present a contrast between our own dark age and the coming age of enlightenment. It was not even necessary to have our people scrutinize and understand the document well. The 50 good men and women, tasked to write her constitution never went through the process of consultations, dialogues and workshops. In 90 days, the documents were debated internally and presented as in a platter for the people to approve in a plebiscite.

The euphoria of the Edsa People Power Revolution was enough to carry through the total overhaul of the vilified 1971 Marcos Constitution. Cory magic worked then.

For twenty years we, as a nation, have been trying to employ the stipulations in that blessed Charter.  Yes, we have become a little less tormented and oppressed, but nonetheless, still impoverished.  One out of three Filipinos lives below the poverty line or 27.3 million out of 82 million (ADB, 2005).  And, atrociously, at least 2.54 million families are living on $1 per day subsistence (WB, 2005). To date, the number of families going hungry surged to a staggering 3 million.

We strictly followed the conditions of Article XII, The National Economy and Patrimony and Article XVI, General Provisions of the Constitution: limiting foreign investments in mining, utilities and advertising, and bans foreign ownership of commercial or industrial land, and the media; to safeguard our natural resources and national political integrity, but the results are very much the same. 

Marcos’ regime distorted our understanding of the word “patrimony”.  We have brought meaning of for “Filipino-first” and “love for country and countrymen” to a deeper level and owned it.

These “nationalist” provisions have become nothing but ostensible demonstrations of love for the nation that is rooted in fear but bearing forth destitution. Now, poverty…soon, widespread famine…and ultimately, massive deaths.

What truly then is love for the nation?  Is it merely fervor for the land or the people?  If the dictum is that people constitute the nation, then we must prioritize the existence of these people; united in ideals, language, and territory.

Patrimony in post-Marcos era should then live up to its “Filipino-first” policy and be people-centered rather than being nation-oriented.  This will ensure that the very people fighting to keep the independence and freedom of the country will be intact and alive to continue their endeavors. There is nothing more patriotic than securing their daily sustenance.

Currently, we, the citizens and the government, are not capable of doing just that.  The 1987 Constitution, the very symbol of a united Filipino, stops us from alleviating our society from tremendous poverty.

We need to retool our domestic economic structures to respond to the needs of the people. We need to make our country’s economy more enticing to foreign investments by changing some of our country’s economic policies, most especially the ones dealing with inward international financial ventures.

These “nationalist” provisions ward off foreign monetary injections critical to jumpstart our economy.  These requirements are so fearful of developmental efforts coming from abroad, thus reducing our country’s chances for economic stability and, at the same time, endangering the littlest of our countrymen’s existence by depriving them of jobs that will bring back the food on their table and dignity into their lives.

We cannot continue with these restrictions while the other ASEAN countries that are open to foreign investments are making economic headway year after year.

Statistics show a great disparity between their profits thru foreign investments and the Philippines’.  Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand collectively averaged $4.43 billion in 1995, $5.8 billion in 2000, and 3.35 billion in 2003.  The Philippines only accumulated a measly $1.48 billion, $1.35 billion, and $319 million in those years.

Currently, the world is in the wake of a global oil crisis and a relative conscientious move to shift to bio-fuel power.

The United States is fast-tracking its own experiments in willow tree by-products as fuel and other alternative power sources.  Incidentally, the Philippines rests on a rich bed of bio-fuel and natural gas deposits.  However, we do not have enough local capital to finance large-scale projects to harvest, much less, process these for domestic use and world export.
Allowing foreign investments is the only resolution to such a happy predicament.  This will enable the country to become a major player in world bio-fuel trading but, again, the Constitution, specifically Article XII and XVI, stifles such a scenario from actually happening.
Liberalizing the economy does not indicate that we would be giving our natural resources and industries away to foreigners and multinational companies.   It does not mean that the situation will be that of the Clark and Subic bases era.  Philippine Legislature, the Parliament, should secure our national, economic, and political interests by making laws that govern such partnerships, and fast.  Sadly, based on the current structure of our government and the Senate’s apparent bias for Senate hearings and investigations, there is a possibility that the Philippines might just miss a great opportunity move forward.
Job opportunities, too, might be way laid if we do not act quite promptly, as investments stimulate the growth of other related businesses and the exponential creation of jobs in warp speed.  Hiring should exercise the “Filipino first” policy and salaries upgraded.  Again, laws are needed instantaneously to secure these waiting employments for our countrymen. There is even a big possibility that with all these happening, the OFW’s will come home from their work abroad and find jobs locally, eventually reuniting them with their families.
The abovementioned reasons make more than enough grounds to immediately amend, if not revise, the Constitution.  There is no question that the Constitution should be solid, as solid could be.  But if this bastion of our rights, hopes and dreams could no longer keep up with the changing times, then we should: without any fear or hesitation; commit to change it for the Filipinos’ sake and Philippine Constitution’s own dignity and continued existence.
Even the great American Constitution did not escape revisions and changes.  In its entire existence it has undergone a total of 27 amendments.  The first twenty years alone, it went through 12 amendments.  The latest of these changes took effect on May 7, 1992, The Congressional Pay Limitation Amendment, also known as theMadison Amendment.  This means that the American people are not afraid of change.  In fact, they amend their Constitution so that they may not be afraid of change.  As a people, we should follow their example on how to revere the Charter of their existence as a nation by making it more relevant when the need arises.

And thus, for future generations of Filipinos and the Constitution itself, that they may be able to weather the challenges of the times: like the proverbial bamboo amidst the wailing storm; we have to fight the fears of the past and our fears of change.  Only then we may be able to bravely face the transformations in our society and the global community.
For in this world set in hyper drive, in times measured in bandwidth, not seconds; of bits, not meters nor grams; of matrices, not blueprints; the Constitution should remain to be our citadel when all else confuse our judgments and cloud our prudence.

WE MUST COMMIT TO CHARTER CHANGE NOW.  Because only through Constitutional reforms, we can alleviate some of the restrictions of our present situations, enabling us to expand the possibilities of our country’s continued development.
Patrimony in post-Marcos Philippines is really nothing new.  It is but realignment in perspective to answer the call of the times.