The House of Representatives will take its cue from the Senate, which will now take the lead on the proposal to amend the restrictive economic provisions of the 37-year-old Constitution.
“I think our Speaker, who gave us clearly his leadership direction, agrees for the Senate to take the lead. He made it very clear to all of us and to the nation that as far as the House is concerned, we are solely interested in (amending) the economic provisions,” said Lanao del Norte Rep. Mohamad Khalid Dimaporo.
Dimporo’s statement came in response to the new resolution filed by Sen. Robin Padilla, calling for amendments to the Charter via the constitutional convention route.
“As far as the Con-Con is concerned and what contents there are, I think there has been a counterpart that has been filed here in the House. So, we can, more or less, give it to the Senate on a silver platter,” he added.
“We’ll let the Senate decide on what they feel is best for the Filipino people. And then, when the time comes, both the House and the Senate can work together hand in hand to deliver what is best for the Filipino people under the presidency of PBBM,” he said further.
Rep. Margarita Nograles of PBA party-list group, a lawyer, said the Senate is well within its right, if it decides to tackle the Resolution of Both Houses No. 8 filed by Sen. Padilla.
“But as far as we here in the House, we have tackled that, we have exhaustively looked into the economic provisions (of the Constitution) solely, and we have yet to see how they would go about this Con-Con, what would be its scope,” she said.
Nograles appealed to the Senate to consider the economic Charter Change resolution, RBH 7 that had been passed at the House on final reading.
Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong of Lanao del Sur agreed with both Dimaporo and Nograles that the House, under the leadership of Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, has already delivered its commitment to the President and the Filipino people to approve amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution to open our country to foreign investments.
“What is really the most important issue that we need to talk about – and we have already delivered – is the intention of revisiting the Constitution, and specifically discussing specific provisions, which is the economic provision in the Constitution,” Adiong said.
Meanwhile, Adiong said, the House will be busy deliberating on pending pieces of legislation and exercising its oversight functions while waiting for a more definitive Senate action on proposals for constitutional economic reforms.
“If we can strengthen our laws for the good of our people, that’s the direction Speaker Martin, the leader of the House of Representatives, would like to pursue in the remaining weeks of our session before we call for sine die,” Adiong said.
Rep. Rodge Gutierrez of 1-RIDER party-list group, also a lawyer, said whatever the Senate decides on regarding the mode by which to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution, the House will follow the lead of the Senate.
Meanwhile, a former finance secretary is urging senators to remove the restrictive provisions in the Philippine Constitution to lift the Philippines from its current dismal position as the region’s laggard in foreign direct investments (FDIs).
In a letter to senators dated April 29, former finance secretary Margarito B. Teves said that removing the restrictions “will send a positive signal to investors and help improve the country’s investment climate to become more competitive in attracting foreign investments.”
“Amending the Constitution to show the Philippines’ commitment to investments can be done alongside enacting policies and reforms that aim to improve the rule of law, address corruption, and enhance the ease of doing business,” he pointed out.
The former finance chief cited that the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF) had noted that these issues and the initiatives to address them were supposed to be “not mutually exclusive and can be addressed simultaneously.”
Also, Teves believes that removing the foreign-investment caps itself will prevent future judicial and regulatory challenges, hence reducing uncertainty among multinational companies interested to pour money here.
“Currently, the Amendments to the Public Service Act are facing two judicial challenges in the Supreme Court. There is a risk that the Supreme Court may declare that Congress has no power to define public utilities and render the reform unconstitutional,” Teves noted.
Another example is the case of the liberalization of renewable energy (RE). According to Teves, if restrictions for natural resources are not removed, there is a possibility for the influx of foreign investments to be challenged, thereby affecting current and future foreign investment in renewables.
“Since the reform, three foreign companies recently entered the offshore wind market promising 10,900-megawatt (MW) potential capacity. These judicial risks can give the impression to foreign investors that their investments can one day be at risk, thereby creating an environment of uncertainty,” he warned.
Teves added that economic Charter change is necessary to place the Philippines’ foreign-investments legal framework at par with its neighbors belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “The Philippines is the only country in the ASEAN region where restrictions in foreign ownership are embodied in its Constitution. Other ASEAN countries manage FDI through legislation.”
Teves explained that “Outright removal of these restrictive economic provisions will open the sectors immediately. Nevertheless, Congress has the power and flexibility to impose appropriate limitations, restrictions, conditions for ownership or safety nets should circumstances warrant these adjustments without going through the long and difficult process of a constitutional amendment.
Teves thus urged the Senate to lift the Constitutional restrictions on land and natural resources, as well as mass media.
The current Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 or “RBH7” pending in the two chambers of Congress cover only advertising, education, and public utilities.
“Removing restrictions on land ownership will provide an opportunity to use idle lands either for agricultural purposes or for business ventures, and enable small landowners to earn from their land while creating livelihood opportunities in many parts of the country, resulting in more widespread and balanced development. This is particularly beneficial for idle lands in areas outside Metro Manila. These idle lands can be used for business or commercial purposes and help in regional growth,” he said.
As for natural resources, he said, the removal of constitutional restrictions will prevent the recently passed circular opening renewable energy from judicial challenges.
On the issue of mass media, Teves pointed out that while other ASEAN countries also restrict foreign investors, “these are not enshrined in their constitutions but are embodied in laws or administrative orders, making them more flexible and easier to change in the future.”
Teves likewise proposed to tweak the “Filipino First” provisions in the 1987 Constitution, in particular the revision of Article II, Section 19 into: “The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy for the benefit of all Filipinos.”
“Our proposal will help clarify that the overriding objective of control is not in terms of ownership but, more importantly, an economy that works for the interests and needs of all Filipinos,” he explained.
Teves also proposed revising Article XII, Section 10 into: “ — in the grant of rights privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified investors.”
The proposal, Teves explained, is grounded on “who can best serve the interest of the Filipino people, regardless of their nationality. Amending the wording of the declaration of principles will create consistency in future laws that Congress may enact, thereby removing the possibility of another constitutional challenge.”