‘Proposed amendments are purely on economics’

By Joseph B.A. Marzan

 

An Ilonggo lawmaker who is second in command of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments clarified that changing the current form of government or extending the terms of elected officials are not part of the agenda.

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments on Wednesday held deliberations on a filed by House Speaker Lord Allan Jay Velasco (Marinduque-Lone) back in July 2019.

The resolution seeks to amend several economic-related provisions of the 1987 Constitution by inserting the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in the following provisions:

– Section 2, Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony), on the use and ownership of natural resources;

– Sec. 3, Art. XII, on the lease and use of lands of the public domain;

– Sec. 7, Art. XII, on the transfer and conveyance of private lands to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain;

– Sec. 10, Art. XII, on the ownership of certain areas of investments;

– Sec. 11, Art. XII, on the ownership, operation, investments, and granting of franchises of public utilities;

– Sec. 4[2], Art. XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports), on the ownership of private educational institutions; and

– Nos. 1 and 2, Sec. 11[1], Art. XVI (General Provisions), on the ownership in the mass media and advertising industries.

The hearings invited former Directors-General of the National Economic and Development Authority Dr. Gerardo Sicat and Prof. Ernesto Pernia, and National Scientist for Economics Dr. Raul Fabella, all of whom were also distinguished faculty at the University of the Philippines School of Economics in Diliman, Quezon City.

The committee’s vice-chairperson, Rep. Lorenz Defensor (Iloilo, 3^rd district) told Daily Guardian via phone interview that these constitutional amendments are meant to usher Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) into the country.

In the past, several lawmakers in previous Congresses as well as economists have pointed to the “stringent” provisions in the 1987 Constitution against foreign ownerships and investments as a primary block to more FDIs in the country.

“We started [on Tuesday] the deliberations of the Committee on the proposed amendments on the economic provisions of our constitution. These provisions open our economy and our industries [to FDI], such as transportation, telecommunication, exploration of our natural resources,” Defensor said in a phone interview.

Some of the blurry points on constitutional amendments were also clarified on Tuesday’s meeting including the manner of voting on the constitutional amendments in the Senate.

 

VOTING

On the manner of voting, Sec. 1[1] of Art. XVII of the Constitution states that any amendment may be proposed by “The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members”.

But the provision was silent on whether the House and the Senate will be voting jointly or separately as two chambers of the Congress.

“We also discussed the manner of voting of the House and the Senate. The position of the committee is that if ever the proposed amendments will pass, it should be voted upon by three-fourths of the members of the House and the Senate separately. We wouldn’t want to dilute or diminish the independent voice of the Senate to propose and approve constitutional amendments,” he said.

On what Committee Chairman Rep. Alfredo Garbin (AKO BICOL Partylist) said at the beginning of Tuesday’s deliberations regarding the committee being a ‘Constituent Assembly’, the Ilonggo lawmaker clarified that they were “exercising constituent powers” by discussing the proposed amendments.

Several lawyers criticized these remarks by Garbin on social media, with Ilonggo lawyer Emil Marañon III telling students “not to skip Constitutional Law class”.

“Under our Constitution, one of the modes of amending is by a three-fourths vote of all the members of Congress. What they said about a ‘Constituent Assembly’ is not the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, but it is the entire House of Representatives, which is a component part of the Constituent Assembly. When Speaker Velasco filed [RBH No. 2], when we acted on it and referred to the Committee, we already entered into the exercise of our constituent powers to discuss amendments,” he explained.

On the amendment to Sec. 3, Art. XII, the lawmaker emphasized that he was against foreign ownership of land.

“This early I have to state that I am against foreign ownership of land here in the Philippines. I want to preserve land exclusively for Filipinos, and I don’t want to see our lands owned by other people and we cannot take it back,” he said.

 

TERM EXTENSION?

About the criticism that these deliberations may be used to push for “charter change”, or change to a parliamentary form of government, and term extensions, Defensor said that the committee had established that they will not be discussing other provisions than what had been indicated in RBH No. 2.

He added that the amendments are also timely to address the negative economic impact brought about by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Government critics previously raised eyebrows over the push for constitutional amendments, as they say it could be used to solidify the power of President Rodrigo Duterte through a change in the form of government and possible extension of terms in office.

Popular criticism of the current moves to amend the country’s charter was also on the timing, as the country continues to grapple with COVID-19.

“We clarified early on that there would be no discussions on political provisions such as term extension or change in the form of government. We are well-aware that we are in the middle of a pandemic, but one of the reasons why we want to amend the economic investments of the constitution which will bring about more employment and more FDIs. I am very open to that, but I am adamant that we should not be discussing the shifting of our government or extending the terms of politicians. We don’t have time to discuss those, given where we are right now,” he said.

He assured that should these amendments be passed both in the House and the Senate, they will still be presented to the Filipino people to be approved via a plebiscite.

“The Filipino people will approve these amendments as proposed by the House and the Senate as a whole body. Both Houses of Congress approve these amendments, but there still needs to be a plebiscite so the people themselves can decide on them,” he said.

A similar resolution calling for amendments to the constitution was filed by Senators Francis Tolentino and Ronald Dela Rosa in the upper chamber in December 2020, but is yet to be deliberated upon as of this writing.