There are several characteristics about this latent attempt to tinker with our Constitution that brazenly belie a sinister agenda seriously more destructive if not more criminal than previous attempts whenever incumbent powers turn madly delusional, thinking that perpetuating their tenure is best for the country.

The debates generated, including this commentary, should have been superfluous and unnecessary, the rationale for rejection clear from the start, and the attempt, void ab initio. The convergence of the darkest demons should have immediately signaled seminal ill intent.

What amazes, and is most disturbing, is that two branches of government are so completely detached from reality, wallowing instead in a cesspool of greed and ambition, that not only are the cliche discourses to reject charter change (Cha-Cha) necessary, but whole organizations need to take to the streets to deliver a one syllable, two letter message – N-O!

The opposition to constitutional tinkering has always been on a slow gradual burn albeit by the time this is published the groundswell should by now be massive even as one branch of government remains rabidly bullheaded in shoving it through while another plays characteristically ambivalent, unsure, and uncertain.

From the perspective of the public who’ve raised their voices if not their fists against the brazen attempt, their epiphany of the political catalysts that spawned the infernal initiative is based on a collective realization that a cast of cabals has crossed the line. 

The impact of what was lost when the Marcos administration took over, the fatal wounds inflicted on representative democracy when our rights of suffrage were trashed and the prospect that all these might perpetuate incurable and unchecked either by future elections or the imposition of constitutional term limits is slowly dawning on the public.

We lost critical democratic safeguards in 2022 and ironically the institutions we relied on to protect and accurately count our collective desires remain potent roadblocks if and when a true and honest people’s initiative (PI) develops from genuine grassroots.

From the House of Representatives where the plan was hatched, the insidious gambit results from treacherous self-delusion – a bloated self-construct of their value as lords of the realm as well as an avaricious desire to perpetuate an iron grip on power and forever enjoy the creature comforts and pecuniary perks that come with it.

At the Senate, we are unexpectedly pleased that their collective inflated egos have an upside when threatened with the possibility of being ignored as a separate institution following an attempt to disenfranchise the Senate’s individuality and authority. Had they not been insulted by the railroading at the Lower House, then given their smaller numbers, the ever-recurring and undying issues about voting jointly or separately might not have so embittered their perspective. The apparently bogus PI complete with its monetary come-ons and signatures should not have even sparked a discourse farther than a firm “No!” as soon as a conspiracy to castrate the Senate became evident.

At the Executive Branch – which should have been a source of checks and balances following the three-branch democratic ideal envisioned by the Constitution – as expected, rather than firm leadership from which we might derive some recourse, on these issues, instead we are treated to characteristic double-speak and uncertainties complicated by undemocratic and overarching dynastic kissing-cousin relationships that serve as unknown factors.

We should have seen the signs as far back as when the Marcos administration had begun lining up its ducks.

When the senatorial candidate who had garnered the highest number of votes was awarded the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes despite his popular public persona as a gangster and actual time served for breaking codified laws, red flags should have then been raised. Instead, we remained starstruck.

Such ironies might have been trivial at first blush where justifications lay with his advocacies for a federal form of government – a centerpiece during the Duterte administration. But federalism is hardly a priority now, especially displaced by recent threats of secession from Rodrigo R. Duterte himself.

Robinhood C. Padilla insists he is focused on the economic provisions. Ferdinand R. Marcos echoes the same. Had those who share those notions done their homework, they would have realized that the old economic proposals to open to 100% foreign equity land ownership, mass media, advertising, education, the foreign practice of professions plus foreign direct investments (FDI) in critical economic multipliers have all substantially been overtaken by globalization, domestic developments in the economy, and the statutes.

Let’s name a few that should have been on a legislator’s reading list. They could have simply read, learned, and done the math to determine the level of liberalization our Constitution already allows.

As a facsimile of virtual land ownership, a 99-year land lease effectively mirroring the likeness of equity is allowed.

In mass media, advertising, and education, to augment debt and equity capital, categorized under a balance sheet’s long-term liabilities, Philippine Depository Receipts (PDR) that do not cede ownership are allowed.

To expand telecommunications infrastructure and develop air, land, and sea transportation, the Public Services Act was amended to allow 100% private foreign equity outside those earmarked as public utilities.

To optimize revenues from patrimonial assets such as oil and gas resources, the long-term service contract concept open to foreign investment has been operational from the time presidential decrees supplanted lawmaking. A case in point is the Deepsea Malampaya gas field and its 550-kilometer submarine pipeline that generated the Malampaya Fund. To reduce power rates further through competition, energy generation has been deregulated and is open to 100% foreign equity.

In mining, provisions for mineral production-sharing agreements (MPSA) are embedded in RA 7942.

To expand financial inclusion, foreign banks are now allowed 100% ownership in local banks through RA 10641.

We do not need to amend the Constitution to attract foreign investments. Instead, we need to level the playing field and reverse the insidious crony capitalism that resurrected with a vengeance both in the private sector and among the cabinet. We need to lower energy rates. We need to educate our youth and workforce.

We need better lawmakers and leaders focused on our welfare. Not theirs. – Rappler.com

Dean de la Paz is a former investment banker and managing director of a New Jersey-based power company operating in the Philippines. He is the chairman of the board of a renewable energy company and is a retired Business Policy, Finance, and Mathematics professor. He collects Godzilla figures and antique tin robots.