Senate yet to finish committee deliberations
THE House of Representatives last night approved on third and final reading Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 (RBH No. 7), the measure which contains the proposed amendments to the the “restrictive” economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
Voting 289-7 with two abstentions, lawmakers approved the RBH No. 7 after three days of plenary debates held last week and two weeks of marathon hearings held by the Committee of the Whole which invited numerous resource persons, including former Supreme Court magistrates and framers of the Charter.
The measure’s counterpart version at the Senate, which is proposed Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, is still pending in the subcommittee of Committee on Constitutional Amendments.
Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara, the Senate subcommittee chairman, has said that deliberations on RBH No. 6 will resume after Congress’ summer break in April. He has earlier said approval of the measure will likely be in October this year.
RBH No. 6 and RBH No. 7 are both entitled, “A Resolution of Both Houses of Congress proposing amendments to certain economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, particularly on Articles Xll, XlV and XVl.”
Speaker Martin Romualdez appealed to the Senate to pass its version soon so that the measure can be sent to the Commission on Elections (Comelec), for the immediate setting of a plebiscite to approve the proposed revisions.
Romualdez said the House has already delivered on its promise to approve the amendment proposals before Congress goes on its five-week Holy Week recess this weekend.
“These changes, if ratified by our people in a plebiscite, will greatly boost these measures, including our President’s investment missions abroad which have generated actual investments and pledges in the billions of dollars and created thousands of jobs,” he said.
Administration congressmen reiterated their call for the senators to meet with them during the Lenten break, which begins today and ends on April 28, to discuss how to go about the two chambers’ separate resolutions.
“The best way is for all of us is to maximize this Holy Week break so that the leadership of the House and the Senate can reconcile on a definitive path on how to approach RBH 6 and RBH 7,” Deputy Speaker David Suarez of Quezon told a press conference, citing the certainty that various sectors will eventually challenge the legality of the measures before the Supreme Court.
Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe has suggested that the House immediately send RBH No. 7 to the Comelec even without the Senate’s version, saying RBH No. 6 can eventually be sent to the poll body once approved by the senators.
“The statements of Congressman Mannix Dalipe echo what is written in the Constitution: that after a three-fourths vote, Comelec, being the rightful agency, will have to conduct the plebiscite,” Suarez said.
Rep. Jil Bongalon (PL, Ako Bicol) said the House and the Senate “should come together and discuss possible implications of RBH 6 and 7,” especially since the House wants the plebiscite to be held at the soonest time possible.
Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri has said that President Marcos Jr. wants the Cha-cha plebiscite to be held simultaneously with the 2025 midterm elections to save billions of pesos, which the Comelec has estimated could reach about P13 billion.
Congressmen fear that the issue will be politicized once the plebiscite is held simultaneously with the 2025 national and local elections since congressmen are being accused of trying to prolong the terms of elected officials even if the resolutions clearly limit the proposed amendments to economic provisions.
“Constitutional challenge is expected in this kind of unprecedented situation, so we are asking the Senate to make good of its commitment that it will deliver to this administration the measure to amend the restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution,” Bongalon told the same press conference.
The House leadership has adopted the mode proposed by the late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and passed RBH No. 7 like an ordinary bill but complying with the constitutional vote requirement of three-fourths.
The House and the Senate’s RBH version differ only on the mode of voting – with RBH No. 6 expressly stating that the voting on the amendments should be undertaken separately by the two chambers, while RBH No. 7 wants voting to be done jointly.
The Constitution, while requiring a three-fourths vote of all members of Congress, does not say if the voting should be done jointly or separately.
Proponents of the bill seek to lift the 40 percent limit on foreign ownership in three sectors to attract more foreign direct investments to the country and create more jobs for Filipinos by adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to the three constitutional provisions — Section 11 of Article XII (National Patrimony and Economy), Section 4 of Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) and Section 11 of Article XVI (General Provisions).
