Pledge to finish talks on economic ‘Cha-cha’ by March hangs
The Senate will not be rushed into proposing changes in the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, putting into question a commitment senators made to House leaders that they would be able to do so by the end of March.
“I just wish to reiterate my colleagues’ stand that this (charter change) is not something that needs to be rushed given its importance, especially since it is the most important or highest law in the country, the Constitution itself,” Senator Sonny Angara said in his opening statement at the start of the hearings on RBH No. 6.
Angara chairs the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, which began discussions on a joint resolution proposing amendments to certain economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Articles 12, 14, and 16.
RBH 6 was filed by Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda, and Angara himself.
Zubiri said at the start of the Senate deliberations that the timeline for the hearings is now in the hands of Angara.
He had assured President Marcos that the Senate would be able to finish the deliberations before Congress adjourns for the Holy Week recess.
“We must discuss this with all members of society, not just our learned luminaries here, as well as different sectors that will be affected by the most amendments of our Constitution…and come out with the best possible outcome,” Zubiri said.
He noted the study on the proposed amendments would not be like other proposals which were “approved without thinking.”
Meanwhile, the country’s legal luminaries and top economists expressed conflicting views on Charter change during the Senate hearing.
Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide renewed his “firm and unchangeable” stand that there is no valid, serious and compelling reason to amend the 1987 Constitution.
For his part, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza suggested the Senate and House of Representatives sit as one body.
“There is some benefit if the two Houses come together,” he said. “The Constitution contemplates that they are not senators or congressmen – they are members of a constituent assembly – just one body.”
He stressed the two Houses of Congress can exchange views regardless of their status as senators or congressmen.
“So the benefit of exchange is there which you cannot have if you leave this policymaking to Congress by law because one House will be acting here (Senate) and the other will be acting there in Quezon City. You will not have the benefit of exchange of views,” Mendoza said.
Dr. Gerardo Sicat, who was the country’s first NEDA director general, said he favors the amendment of the restrictive economic provisions, pointing out they are the prominent provisions “for which we have suffered as a nation, in failing to achieve the goals of economic development over a long period of time.”
Former Finance secretary Margarito Teves, on the other hand, said “the close and restrictive model has been with us since 1935 and it contributed to the inability of our country to progress. It is high time to change the business model under the constitution.”
Senator Risa Hontiveros, who actively questioned the former justices, insisted that there are already laws and pending legislation targeted to liberalize the economy.
Among them are Republic Act 10641, or amendments to the Foreign Bank Liberalization Act, the Retail Trade Liberalization Act, the Public Service Act and the Foreign Investments Act.
“So much of the Philippine economy is already open to foreign participation. Our store is wide open, ladies and gentlemen,” she said.
She further belied Cha-cha proponents’ claim that the Constitution is “too restrictive” and compared the supposed restrictions to those of Singapore, whose economy continues to thrive despite strict restrictions on critical industries and public utilities”.
