Leaders of major political parties and blocs in the House of Representatives have signed a manifesto of support for Speaker Lord Allan Velasco’s call to review the economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution to help the economy recover from the devastating impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
In the manifesto, the leaders vowed that the House would “deliberate only on the economic provisions” as specified in Resolution of Both Houses 2 filed by Velasco and was now being taken up by the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments.
They said the legislative chamber would remain consistent with its position that when Congress proposes amendments to the 34-year-old Charter, “the House of Representatives and the Senate shall vote separately.”
The proposed amendments will be submitted to the people for ratification simultaneously with the May 2022 national elections, they added.
At the same time, the chairman of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Constitutional Amendments urged Charter change critics to raise the matter before the Supreme Court if they think his panel has conducted the hearing in a questionable manner.
Ako-Bicol Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr.’s statement that his panel was already sitting as a constituent assembly when it began Wednesday its deliberations on economic Cha-cha drew the ire of some senators and other Cha-cha oppositors.
“If there is a justiciable controversy, they can raise it before the Supreme Court, hindi naman natin mapipigilan sila,” Garbin said.
“But the committee, if it is approved in the committee and referred to the plenary, we will continue to discuss the proposal and debate on it kung wala namang injunction from the Supreme Court,” he added.
Garbin, a lawyer, said he has relayed his position on the matter to Speaker Lord Allan Velasco, also a lawyer, and he said the latter agreed.
Deputy Speaker Rufus Rodriguez, who previously served as chair of the House constitutional amendments panel, disagreed with Garbin, saying ConAss starts in the House plenary, not in the committee.
“The committee will recommend, just require, just like any other legislation, a majority of the votes to approve, majority of the members who can vote to approve the committee report and recommend to the plenary,” Rodriguez said.
“So therefore the three-fourths will be required only when we are already going to vote after the deliberations, after we have converted the plenary into ConAss, after the committee report is received by the rules,” he added.
In the Senate meanwhile, Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said Garbin was wrong when he said that his panel was already convened into a Constituent Assembly during its hearing on Wednesday, January 13.
He insisted that the committee could supposedly be treated as a Con-Ass – one of three modes allowed to amend the 1987 Constitution – because they are exercising their power to propose amendments to the charter.
But Drilon emphasized that congressmen and senators were elected as members of Congress and as legislators to enact ordinary laws, not as members of a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution.
In order that the House and the Senate can propose amendments to the Constitution, Congress, with two Houses voting separately, must convene itself through a resolution into a Con-Ass.
Absent that resolution of both Houses, he said the proceedings in the House Committee cannot assume the functions and powers of a Con-Ass.
“I suspect that Cong Garbin is laying the basis to claim that the House alone, even without any Senator participating, can propose amendments to the Constitution,” he said.
“Such claim is totally baseless, but a dangerous precedent,” he added.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III said, “whatever it is, they have to do it in plenary, otherwise that is not the Congress proper.”
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said “the last time we heard, the Congress of the Philippines is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives” and referred to Article 17 on amendments or revisions.
“We believe that now is the most opportune time to resume the deliberation on the amendments to the economic provisions specified under RBH No. 2 for the primary purpose of mitigating and providing lasting solutions to the devastating economic effects brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic,” the manifesto read.
“In doing so, we hope to fortify and safeguard the foundations of our nation from future crises and curtail the severity of other economic regressions going forward.”
The leaders assured that they “remain firm in our resolve to utilize all means possible within the period left for the 18th Congress to adopt measures and introduce reforms that will provide the maximum benefit to the Filipino people and lead the country towards a robust and sustainable recovery.”
The signatories of the manifesto were House Majority Leader and Leyte 1st District Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez for Lakas-NUCD, Deputy Speaker and Oriental Mindoro 1st District Rep. Salvador Leachon, Rizal 1st District Rep. Michael John Duavit for the Nationalist People’s Coalition, Surigao del Norte 2nd District Rep. Robert Ace Barbers for the Nacionalista Party, Cavite 4th District Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr. for the National Unity Party, Davao City 3rd District Rep. Isidro Ungab for Hugpong ng Pagbabago, Deputy Speaker and 1-PACMAN Rep. Michael Romero for the Party-list Coalition Foundation Inc., and Aurora Rep. Rommel Rico Angara for the independent bloc.
Earlier, the nation’s top economists supported efforts to amend the economic provisions in the Charter to make the Philippines “more foreign investment-friendly” and to accelerate the country’s economic recovery.
Even Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III said he was supportive of the move to amend the restrictive economic provisions and for the opening of the economy “in all areas possible,” with the exception of land ownership. He said the government must also set “doable” measures like relaxing rules on retail trade and construction.
Velasco had earlier instructed the Committee on Constitutional Amendments to open discussions on amending the economic provisions of the Constitution, as stated in RBH 2.
Velasco said these “restrictive” economic provisions, which hamper the flow of foreign capital investments, must be lifted to support the country’s economic recovery from COVID-19.
He said foreign investments play a crucial role in the economy by supporting domestic jobs and the creation of physical and knowledge capital across a range of industries.
RBH 2 specifically aims to amend certain economic provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles XII (National Patrimony and Economy), XIV (Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports) and XVI (General Provisions).
The measure seeks to insert the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to several sections of the Constitution, which restrict foreign ownership of land, natural resources, public utilities, educational institutions, media and advertising.
It provides that by a vote of three-fourths of all its members, the Senate and the House voting separately could propose amendments to the economic provisions of the basic law of the land.