Reimagining the possible

It is astonishing to see how a fight over territory can result in the flattening of a once progressive city and the driving away of its people who built that place, such as what happened in Aleppo. The rebels are gone, and so is everyone who were lucky enough to survive. For that government who won the land, now with nothing and no one in it, that victory is a loss.

This example from a war-torn territory is not the best example to pick and compare to a territory at peace, like our country. But I cite it to dramatize the extreme that a land without people and without development is just solid ground to stand on, a potential untapped, opportunities lost.

Land ownership in the country is not only vested with emotional content – it is exclusive to Filipinos. In a world where a “global” Filipino can own land in almost any country, including First World countries, the Philippines continues its refusal to reciprocate and remains a protectionist.

Our Constitution prohibits foreigners from owning land, but why? It is the concept of the Philippines for the Filipinos, borne out of the trauma of centuries of Spanish colonization, decades of American occupation, and years of Japanese oppression. Let’s get real though. If we had a Constitution then that prohibits foreigners from owning land here, it is not like they will not colonize or occupy the country to respect our laws. House robbers are not deterred from breaking in by the fact that their target is private property. In fact, that is the point of the robbery. That is the point of any colonization or occupation.

It certainly feels like a way to get back at those who, in our history, set foot in the country uninvited and claimed the country as if it is owed to them. After the world moved on and history’s pages turned to new chapters of contemporary realities, the Philippines had forgiven, but had not forgotten. Foreigners, or “aliens” as they are fondly referred to legally, still cannot own land in this country.

I, for one, shouldn’t complain. If foreigners own land to their hearts’ content in Metro Manila, real estate prices would simply be unaffordable or out of reach to ordinary folks. Besides, underpopulation is not the problem in the National Capital Region (NCR) where an estimated 20,000 humans reside per square kilometer. In the entirety of Luzon, the average falls to 520 humans per sq km, 270 in the Visayas, and only 230 in Mindanao. Outside of NCR, there are a number of cities that have been urbanized, but you just can’t miss the innumerable locations where development has stagnated, with status almost unchanged even after decades.

You can bet on one thing. People residing in highly urbanized areas will not disperse to the provinces just because there is more land there. For many of those places, there will always be land but not necessarily productivity, not necessarily progress, not necessarily poverty alleviation.

We can allow land ownership to foreigners and direct them to where development is needed, to bring economic activity in that place and create the multiplier effect for the whole country. We can control that by limiting the area that can be owned per foreign individual. We can even designate with much particularity where they can buy to leave sufficient area for the rest of the locals.

The government has in fact tried to lure foreigners to come and spend their life earnings here not as tourists, but as residents. To be fair, there is the Philippine Retirement Authority that entices foreigners to retire here so that the country can benefit from their pensions and the commerce that their spending can bring to the local residents around. The country is being sold for its climate, natural attraction and smiles of its people. But nothing will be as meaningful and as sincere as inviting them to come here, own land and have a life, not at the tail end of their lives but during their best years. At the peak of their powers, they can immerse their talents with ours, transfer technology, and increase trade with their country of birth. What if they become protective of this country, which they will now call home, and what if they cared enough to build the country like it is their own?

With foreign communities and foreign land owners,

can there be more farms in Aurora, Quezon with imported bulls or livestock that can supply the dairy needs of our urban areas? Can there be more agricultural activity in Samar, which eternally remains poor? Will villages where foreign families can reside spur traditional Japanese homes, European structures, or Mediterranean designs across VisMin that can attract investments, tourists, new local enterprises, and lift the standard of living in that general area?

If we are able to liberate the most political of all foreign ownership limitations, can we liberalize the Filipino corporation requirements for public service entities? Will this summon a more dynamic investment climate that can finally bring the country high-speed trains from the airport to the city, faster digital connectivity, and efficient public transportation systems?

They say land is never owned; it is just passed on. And we can presume to know what is best for the generation after us, and be firm that if Filipinos cannot own and develop this land, no one will. Or, we can reimagine the possible.

***

Alexander B. Cabrera is the chairman and senior partner of Isla Lipana & Co./PwC Philippines. He also chairs the Tax Committee of the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP). Email your comments and questions to aseasyasABC@ph.pwc.com. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.