To start off, BS Aquino’s position is flawed from the outset. Perhaps he was again too lazy to do the proper research or maybe it’s a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.

The argument holds that “China…grew economically despite a prohibition on foreign ownership of land.

The president implies that the same situation prevails in the Philippines as in China. That is untrue. The constitution of the People’s Republic of China DOES NOT PREVENT FOREIGN OWNERSHIP NOR RESTRICT FOREIGN INVESTMENT. Article 18 states: “The People’s Republic of China permits foreign enterprises, other foreign economic organizations and individual foreigners to invest in China and to enter into various forms of economic co-operation with Chinese enterprises and other economic organizations in accordance with the law of the People’s Republic of China. All foreign enterprises and other foreign economic organizations in China, as well as joint ventures with Chinese and foreign investment located in China, shall abide by the law of the People’s Republic of China. Their lawful rights and interests are protected by the law of the People’s Republic of China.”

This is the critical bit: foreign entities are permitted to invest “in accordance with the law of the People’s Republic of China.” All implementing rules and guidelines governing foreign ownership and investments are handled SEPARATE from the constitution by the appropriate agencies and/or laws passed by the National Peoples Congress. Regulatory guidelines which may be amended, modified, replaced or done away with altogether, according to the judgment of state planners and the prevailing economic conditions. As was the case in May 2012, when China raised the cap on foreign ownership in domestic joint venture securities firms from 33 to 49%.

In contrast, Article XII of the 1987 constitution specifies that NO company in the Philippines shall have less than 60% Filipino ownership. In other words, we have enshrined in the primary law of the land a mechanism that places restrictions on the free market. It ensures a situation that within our borders we will only ever trade with ourselves by barring competition from foreign companies.

That fundamental difference is the point of contention. When America’s founding fathers wrote the US constitution, they did so with the realization that they could never account for, nor anticipate ALL possible (legal) situations. Nor did they want to. Instead, what they intended was to create the best possible framework which would serve as the basis for the law of the land. Laws which would then be crafted by a legislature composed of elected representatives of the people. The Philippines, on the other hand, formulates policy based on restrictions that limit free market competition from the start built into our constitution.

The provision has been detrimental to the Philippines’ economic growth. Instead of promoting the development of local industries, Article XII has strengthened the stranglehold of the old monopolies. It has turned away potential investors looking to partner with local companies who see the restriction as Filipinos telling the world to bring the money without giving much assurance that they’ll get it back; technically, it will all be in the local partner’s name. And when there are foreigners willing to invest, you can always be assured that there’s going to be a canny local partner who is willing to use a little graft and corruption to find ways around the rules.

If we want to get the economy rolling along the right path, that change in the charter can’t come too soon.

1.) Protectionism, perhaps, could be a much-needed reality check and possibly the bitter pill we need. Sometimes you need to give your 19-year-old kid an ultimatum. Get a job or start paying rent.

My answer;
Protectionism cannot be compared to the 19 year old kid force to get out from parent’s house and be independent. And that’s wrong. I will say, our government is over protectionist about our assets that supposed to be marketed long time ago inorder to help the majority of the population to get a job. For a very long time, we tolerate the 60/40 percent restrictions to the foreign investors. It is like;

“Choking their neck at the same time pickpocketing their wallet”. Do you think that is fair for them? Of course not!

P-Noy compared China that doesn’t tolerate the land ownership to the foreign companies. Remember that China doesn’t allow land ownership to both local and foreign investors since Mao. But China is starting to disseminate the land property to farmers. The government was planning( started half decade ago) to try to distribute the lands little by little to the people. But it can’t be happened one at a time. That is one of the long term plans of China. The real estate “land property” in China is stagnant and can’t go into market because it is not owned by people. They wanted to emulate the USA that land property can be marketable.

They are always adjust the policy to suit the current needs of their economy for free market. As far as I know, China only allow restrictions on banking sectors, they do not allow 100% ownership from foreign investors. Benign0 and PNoy failed to see the perks of free market to allow 100% ownership of the foreign companies. Additionally they failed to see that “China is very very quick in changing their policy to fit-in in the current needs of the economy”.