Mr Lee Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 House panel approves foreign ownership resolutionWell what do you think about that? I wonder if it will ever be made law? This is no doubt a way to stay in office for GMA! IN THE face of the widespread public opposition to Charter change, the House committee on constitutional amendments adopted Tuesday Speaker Prospero Nograles's resolution, which seeks to allow ownership and title to alienable public and private lands to foreigners.You can read the whole story, click the link below.http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/house-pan...ship-resolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnrxx99 Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 The opposition hardly has a point worth consideration as they are based on racist grounds. Treason for god's sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_shor Posted February 15, 2009 Posted February 15, 2009 Yes proper regulation would control those type of excesses. The amount and type of land owned can still be controled as well. There are a lot of countries that allow foreigners to own land but not the natural resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Lee Posted April 30, 2009 Author Posted April 30, 2009 Group bucks foreign ownership of land Move may lead to exorbitant property priceshttp://business.inquirer.net/money/topstor...nership-of-land IMO, foreigners should be allowed to own their own homes and the land they sit on, as well as business locations in order to insure stability for them and their future. I agree that foreigners should not be allowed to own large sums of land, so there needs to be balance in the law, but who will speak for the foreigners interest in all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Group bucks foreign ownership of land Move may lead to exorbitant property priceshttp://business.inquirer.net/money/topstor...nership-of-land IMO, foreigners should be allowed to own their own homes and the land they sit on, as well as business locations in order to insure stability for them and their future. I agree that foreigners should not be allowed to own large sums of land, so there needs to be balance in the law, but who will speak for the foreigners interest in all this? I think it is fair to say that foreigners have already spoken and very audibly on this issue. The Chambers of Commerce go through this ritual every time politicians go to them with begging bowls and start whining on why it is that the Philippines receives the lowest FDI of anywhere in SEA. They are politely invited to amend their ownership laws, or at least have reciprocal arrangements on a country by country basis. The listening skills and action are known to be missing.Foreigners can own condos, yet what percentage of all condos are owned by foreigners?, I suspect very little and with no effect at all on condo pricing. I will stick my neck out and suggest that there are more empty unfinished condos over 15 years old than there are foreign owned condos in total.There is only one way they will change their protective and rascist laws on this issue and that is if overseas governments apply the same restrictive laws and practices with seizures of Philippine owned freeholds overseas and taking an immediate holding of not more or less than 60 percent of all overseas Philippines businesses. Now then, I suspect there might be a reaction!!Most countries have laws that allow foreign ownership. UK is a free for all provided you can account for the legitimacy of the source of funds. Australia you can own raw land that has to be built on within 12 months using local resources, a real boost for the economy.Tax residency, visa type, like the new Special Investors Visa and indeed the retirement visa SRRV are all effective ways of showing commitment here by foreigners. I am sure there are more options.Trouble is, its close to election time and there is no better opportunity that to drape the national flag over a hijacked issue of sovereignty.Mike Edited May 1, 2009 by mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genius Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Coming from the UK, you can clearly see the benefits of being open to outside capital. All across SEA you can see the benefits.Of course the problem is not the benefits it will bring the nation but the danger of bringing real competition to those entrenched interests. They just won't have it. If it means starvation and stunted economic growth, well so be it. Group bucks foreign ownership of land Move may lead to exorbitant property priceshttp://business.inqu...nership-of-land IMO, foreigners should be allowed to own their own homes and the land they sit on, as well as business locations in order to insure stability for them and their future. I agree that foreigners should not be allowed to own large sums of land, so there needs to be balance in the law, but who will speak for the foreigners interest in all this? I think it is fair to say that foreigners have already spoken and very audibly on this issue. The Chambers of Commerce go through this ritual every time politicians go to them with begging bowls and start whining on why it is that the Philippines receives the lowest FDI of anywhere in SEA. They are politely invited to amend their ownership laws, or at least have reciprocal arrangements on a country by country basis. The listening skills and action are known to be missing.Foreigners can own condos, yet what percentage of all condos are owned by foreigners?, I suspect very little and with no effect at all on condo pricing. I will stick my neck out and suggest that there are more empty unfinished condos over 15 years old than there are foreign owned condos in total.There is only one way they will change their protective and rascist laws on this issue and that is if overseas governments apply the same restrictive laws and practices with seizures of Philippine owned freeholds overseas and taking an immediate holding of not more or less than 60 percent of all overseas Philippines businesses. Now then, I suspect there might be a reaction!!Most countries have laws that allow foreign ownership. UK is a free for all provided you can account for the legitimacy of the source of funds. Australia you can own raw land that has to be built on within 12 months using local resources, a real boost for the economy.Tax residency, visa type, like the new Special Investors Visa and indeed the retirement visa SRRV are all effective ways of showing commitment here by foreigners. I am sure there are more options.Trouble is, its close to election time and there is no better opportunity that to drape the national flag over a hijacked issue of sovereignty.Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropicalwaste Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Personally it would be nice but I wont hold my breathe on it happening. The way forward is to open it up or even do a fixed ownership value to stop over expansion e.g. you can only have assets not valuing more than P10million which can be business and residential but either way you own it. Tied with it is a direct interest in the Philippines such as marriage or operating a company with export value of = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genius Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 What is the betting that the 60:40 partner with Nestle has a surname like 'Marcos', ''Arroyo'', ''Tan'' etc ? Personally it would be nice but I wont hold my breathe on it happening. The way forward is to open it up or even do a fixed ownership value to stop over expansion e.g. you can only have assets not valuing more than P10million which can be business and residential but either way you own it. Tied with it is a direct interest in the Philippines such as marriage or operating a company with export value of = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts