FILIPINOS, and not senators, should have the option to choose what mode they want to undertake in proposing economic amendments to the 1987 Constitution, which for the longest time have hampered the country’s economic growth, Albay Rep. Joey Salceda on Wednesday said.
“Ultimately, over and above the House of Representatives and the Senate, the people are supreme and sovereign. The people’s initiative is a valid mode of amending the Constitution. Neither the Senate nor the House can deny this,” the House ways and means committee chairman insisted.
As briefly stated in the fundamental law of the land, Salceda said the Philippines is a democratic country with a republican system, whose “sovereignty resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them.” Thus, citizens are supreme, even more than elected public officials.
Now ranked eighth in the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Salceda observed that “nothing has worked to actually feed our people and lift farmers out of poverty,” precisely because of the charter’s very prohibitive restrictions on foreign ownership, among many others.
“We should not be afraid of the popular will. The House is not, and the Senate, as a bastion of democracy, should not be,” he said. “Frankly, to address the heart of the matter, so what if a foreigner buys land? As long as he buys it at a fair price and invests to make it productive.”
“I would rather allow the foreigner to do agriculture here, than import cheaper food abroad with hard-earned OFW (overseas Filipino worker) dollars. We Filipinos are already among the largest landowners in Australia and that country does not complain,” Salceda compared.
He then offered his proposal: “Perhaps we should try freedom: The freedom of the people to amend their constitution. The freedom of farmers to work with foreign capital and technology. The freedom of Filipinos to invest in the agriculture sector.”
Salceda also rectified misconceptions about senators, or those opposing charter change, who are only in the guise of protecting national interest, when it has been an open secret for decades that all administration’s restrictive land policies have only resulted in a “failure.”
“Are we protecting our farmers or keeping them poor? Over 42% of agricultural households are poor, versus 11 percent for non-agricultural households. That means our non-agricultural households alone are already at the same poverty rate as rich countries like Germany and Canada,” he said.
“Are we protecting our farms, or starving it of capital? Are we protecting our agriculture sector or keeping it stunted?” he asked. “If we keep at this rate, we will depend more on imported food every year, or starve,” he warned.
“The world’s best countries for agricultural efficiency – Israel and Netherlands – impose no restrictions on foreign ownership of private land. And these are very small countries with limited land supply,” Salceda pointed out.
“As a result of keeping the tap open, the flow of foreign capital and technology in their agriculture is steady,” he said, endorsing amendments to the very prohibitive economic provisions in the Constitution.
About the Author
