The people will have the final say over any amendments to the Constitution, which must be approved in a referendum before they come into force, House Majority Leader and Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez said Tuesday.
Romualdez made the statement after the House committee on constitutional amendments voted 62 against three with three abstentions to approve Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) 2 filed by Speaker Lord Allan Velasco, seeking to give Congress the flexibility to amend the restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
“It’s the people who will make the amendments to the Constitution. Congress will just propose the constitutional economic reforms,” Romualdez said.
Romualdez said the push for changes to the economic provisions of the Constitution would complement the Duterte administration’s initiatives to speed up economic growth.
Velasco’s resolution seeks to insert the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” into specific provisions of the Constitution on the national patrimony and economy; education, science, and technology; and general provisions.
The House committee on constitutional amendments led by Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr., however, excluded the proposed amendment to Section 7 of Article XII referring to the ban on foreign ownership of land.
The approval of RBH 2 coincided with the 34th anniversary of the ratification of the 1987 Charter, which Garbin described as a “living Constitution” that is “far from being perfect.”
“When the people ratified the 1987 Constitution containing limitations on foreign ownership and participation on certain economic activities, it was their desire at that time to make the limitations specific. However, the Constitution is not unchangeable,” Garbin said.
“It is about time we correct this unintended anomaly by introducing an amendment that gives the legislature the freedom to amend those time-bound laws that have been enshrined in the Constitution to the detriment of the common good of the Filipinos now and in the future,” he said.
Velasco sought to liberalize the restrictive economic constitutional provisions to allow Congress to enact laws that will free up the economy to foreign investors and provide much-needed economic relief to Filipinos in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Velasco stressed foreign investment plays a crucial role in the economy by supporting domestic jobs and the creation of physical and knowledge capital across a range of industries.
“The need to attract foreign capital is critical to support our economy’s recovery from COVID-19,” Velasco said.
Velasco’s resolution has the backing of all major political parties and power blocs in the House of Representatives who have earlier signed a manifesto in support of RBH 2.
Rep. Joey Salceda of Albay said the resolution could lead to an additional average annual foreign direct investment (FDI) of P330 billion ($6.8 billion) and generate 6.6 million jobs over a 10-year period.
A report by the 38th Global Investment Trends Monitor recently revealed that FDI flows into the Philippines for 2020 amounted to $6.4 billion.
Justice Adolfo Azcuna on Tuesday told members of a congressional panel hearing proposals to amend the Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions that the time is now to change the 34-year-old Charter to allow the economy some flexibility.
At the resumption of the public hearing of the House committee on constitutional amendments, Azcuna said he first proposed the idea of amending the Constitution to then House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, noting that “the whole idea is to render changeable by legislation those restrictive economic provisions in our Constitution.”
Azcuna, who is currently the Chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy, said these include “specific details, as distinguished from bedrock principles, which should not be changed by legislation.”
“The details can be changed by legislation––and should be changed by legislation––since they are not meant to last for a long time,” said Azcuna, who also sat as a member of the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
Azcuna pointed out that “economic policy should be flexible; it should not be written in stone.”
“And when we did write it in stone in the Constitution, I felt personally that we did not mean it to last for 34 years. And in fact, we provided that after five years the Constitution may be amended, even by initiative, by the people themselves,” Azcuna added.