Foreigners still banned from owning lands even under federal gov’t

Full foreign ownership of lands in the country will still not be allowed even under a federal form of government and that the national government would still hold the majority in revenue allocation, according to the draft on the reforms in the economic provisions under the proposed shift to the federal structure of government.

This prompted businessmen present at the Discussion Series on Understanding the Proposed Federal Government, organized by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) where businessmen have the anti-federalism sentiment, to question the objectives to give more autonomy to the regions and the fears if the shift fails.

Arthur N. Aguilar, chair of the subcommittee on economic reforms of the Charter Change Consultative Committee, said there is no news in the current ban on full foreign ownership of lands.

“The news is that we still keep the restriction,” Aguilar said in a presentation.

During an interview with reporters, Aguilar, who used to serve as general manager of the state-run National Development Company, said that foreigners are still allowed to lease land of up to 75 years under the Philippine Economic Zone Authority and that is tantamount to land ownership already.

The reason to keep the restriction is that the country’s land is shrinking with more than 106 million Filipinos, he said.

“Our land is shrinking already, and getting to be a precious resource,” Aguilar said and yet it is still very cheap compared to other countries. The moment the ban on full foreign ownership of land is lifted, prices of real estate will immediately go up like what happened in other countries like Sydney, Vancouver, and London.

“If you open that up, a lot of foreign investors will buy lands they’re not even buyers, just speculators. They come here with big wallets,” he said citing the rich Chinese who will be coming in to buy lands. This will hamper the country’s ability to undertake low-cost mass housing projects for soldiers, teachers, and OFWs.

“Even our grandchildren can no longer afford,” he said.

Benjamin R. Punongbayan, PCCI vice-chair for national issues and legislative committee, questioned the 60-40 in favor of the federal government in the allocation of revenues stressing this will not amount to autonomy to the regions.

Punongbayan said that the 60 percent revenue share of the federal “is a lot, I don’t think this will amount to autonomy because the national government is controlling it.”

“How do you create the 40 percent,” he said noting that the value added tax, income tax, excise tax percentage tax are very difficult to put to the regions.

So, the most the national government will do is give the 40 percent but that would just be considered a doleout by the regions that he feared will only “be misused because there is no accountability.”