Editorials
Wednesday, January 12, 2000Estrada abandons
constitutional planPRESIDENT Joseph Estrada has been forced to abandon his effort to amend the Philippine constitution to remove restrictions on foreign ownership of land and key industries.The issue: President Joseph Estrada has given up his proposal to amend the Philippine constitution by eliminating restrictions on foreign investment.
The proposal caused a storm of opposition, mainly from the former enemies of Ferdinand Marcos who feared another dictatorship and suspected that Estrada really wanted to eliminate the constitutional restriction of one six-year presidential term to enable him to remain in office.
Foremost among them were former President Corazon Aquino and the Roman Catholic archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Jaime Sin, who staged several mass rallies to protest Estrada's proposal. There was also opposition on nationalist grounds to opening the economy further to foreign interests.
The constitution was adopted in 1987, a year after Marcos was overthrown and was flown to Hawaii. Aquino, who was installed as president when Marcos was ousted, supported the constitution's approval and has been vigilant in resisting any sign of a return to dictatorship.
Estrada, a former movie star, won election as president in May 1998 with a convincing 40 percent of the vote in a field of 11 candidates and began his presidency with high popularity ratings in opinion polls. But his popularity has flagged in recent months as the economy has stagnated and he was unable to show progress in fulfilling his campaign pledges to alleviate poverty.
The president repeatedly denied claims that his motive in calling a constitutional convention was to give himself a chance to run again, but the issue damaged him and he finally surrendered after months of resistance. He insisted that the constitutional changes he proposed were needed to encourage foreign investment.
However, despite his retreat, Estrada has won legislative approval for proposals to remove other restrictions on foreign investment in the retail trade and banking, which are not covered by the constitutional provisions on the economy. These welcome measures follow steps taken by his predecessor, Fidel Ramos, to open the highly protected economy.
Despite Estrada's popularity, there was much skepticism in business circles about the former actor's ability to provide effective, competent leadership. That skepticism seems to have spread to the general public as its patience has worn thin.
Estrada has announced a cabinet reshuffle and a committee to formulate new economic policies. He said the government would focus on short-term measures that would entail "less cost to national unity."
With some of the Philippines' neighbors rebounding more strongly from the 1997 economic crisis, the country could be left behind again. After the rebuff of his attempt to amend the constitution, the president will be hard put to come up with solutions.
Age discrimination
THE scope of federal authority over state governments has been narrowed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has chosen in recent decisions to shield states from federal lawsuits. The states'-rights majority on the court has now extended state immunity from federal lawsuits to the area of age discrimination against state employees. The court action appropriately allows state protective measures against discrimination to take effect.
The high court's 5-4 vote in cases from Florida and Alabama is consistent with other recent decisions limiting the 14th Amendment's equal-protection guarantee to the areas of race, religion and sex. The Supreme Court has never ruled that age discrimination is unconstitutional.
Congress enacted legislation in 1967 banning age discrimination in the private sector and extended it to state governments in 1974. However, the Supreme Court ruled two years later that Massachusetts did not violate the constitutional rights of its state troopers by making them retire at age 50.
"States may discriminate on the basis of age without offending the 14th Amendment if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the court's majority opinion this week. She added that the court requires "a tighter fit between the discriminatory means and the legitimate ends they serve" when the issue is race or sex discrimination.
O'Connor noted that state employees are covered by state age-discrimination statutes. Hawaii law protects county and state civil servants from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, religion, color, martial status or political grounds.
The high court's ruling properly limits the federal government's power by upholding the states' 11th Amendment general immunity from being sued in federal courts. States have acted responsibly in enacting laws regarding discrimination against state employees in areas not covered by the U.S. Constitution. By putting those laws to good use, the states can avoid the federal government's infringement on states' rights.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
