The entire country is bustling with initiatives to amend or not to amend the fundamental and highest law of the Philippines - the Constitution.

Amidst all these it will be beneficial for us to understand at least some of the economic aspects of these efforts because the outcome will surely affect us all.

Much has been said over all sorts of media, about the costs and benefits, pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages of amending the Constitution.

My view is, since we are into it already – meaning the public and private sectors or practically everybody - have invested a lot of time, money and effort, then let’s get this done and resolved. Let us answer the question: Do we or do we not want it amended?

I mentioned “investments” in terms of capital and labor that both sides have poured into the endeavor.

And we are talking only about the process of deciding on this charter change. When we go to the amendments then we have a lot of economic implications.

It is argued that the shift from Presidential to Parliamentary System will mean faster law-making and a more stable leadership. These are two advantages which could increase investments and improve the climate of doing business in the Philippines.

It looks like the need for encouraging the entry of more foreign capital is generally accepted even to existing “protected” industries like the media and in the ownership of land. It is a way of increasing investments, employment and income.

The aspect of changing to a federal structure is more debatable since there is no assurance that underdeveloped regions (meaning those having much lower economic production than the other regions like Metro Manila, Central Visayas, Southern Tagalog and Central Luzon) will have enough resources to sustain their state programs. This concern has to be addressed so that no region is worse off because of federalism. A “common fund” has to be set up for distribution to regions with low financial resources.

It looks like the better choice is to go for a plebiscite or charter change and decide once and for all whether we want to have increased political stability and economic growth that will lead to social development.

The economic benefits far outweigh the cost of this democratic exercise.