FORMER Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. yesterday said that there is no compelling reason why the so-called restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution should be amended.
During the first day hearing of the Senate sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes on Monday, Davide said what the country needs is the strict implementation of “its principles and state policies.”
“What our country and our people need today are not amendments to or revisions of the Constitution, but the full implementation of its principles and state policies solemnly enshrined in its Article II (on the) mandatory and provisions in its body,” said Davide, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution.
Article II of the 1987 Constitution contains the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the Philippines.
Davide warned that amending the Constitution “could create more serious and disturbing problems and consequences,” such as foreign ownership in the country’s basic education system.
He said it is the work of the government to improve the lives of its people by implementing the “solemn commands” provided in the Constitution, a responsibility which he said has not been seriously taken by the government.
“However, either intentionally and with evident bad faith or incompetence or neglect of duty on the part of concerned government officials, the State or Congress have not fully and meaningfully complied with this constitutional commands and mandates. Hence, a vast majority of the provisions, especially on social justice, on economic development, on abolition of political dynasties, among many others, have remained unimplemented to the great prejudice of our people,” Davide said.
He said that “if at all” that there is a need to change the Constitution, “it must be based on the most compelling grounds or reasons that should be for the benefit of the people, and not a few chosen ones.”
“It is to solve serious problems, not to create new ones. It must be in pursuance of an in compliance with the declared principles and state policies,” he stressed.
He said RBH No. 2 of the House of Representatives points to the so-called restrictive economic restrictions as the “culprit” which allegedly “hinders” economic growth as it proposes amendments to economic provisions pertaining to agriculture, land ownership, and lease.
But, Davide said, said such restrictions are not the “causes of massive” social, economic, political, moral, and ethical problems of the country, but the failure to fully implement or enforce the Constitution is.”
“I repeat… they cannot dissolve (these problems) by removing its (Constitution’s) restrictive economic provisions and completely leaving to Congress the future under the clause ‘unless otherwise provided by law.’”
Former Commission on Elections chairman Christian Monsod shared Davide’s views and said there is no reason for Cha-cha since there is nothing stated about it in the Philippine Development Plan.
He wondered why President Marcos Jr. made a turn-around on the Cha-cha issue when the latter, during an interview “a year ago,” said that “we can do without changing the Constitution” but said a different thing in an interview last January 23.
“The President should know better. He is after all the chairman of NEDA which came out about September 2022 with the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, approved by the President, that states that the country is ‘open for business’,” Monsod said.
With this, he said: “Clearly, there is no need or requirement for Charter changes in the Philippine Development Plan.”
“What then is the purpose of convening a constituent assembly to pass these three provisions? There is nothing special about them that will address these so-called problems of restrictions against foreign direct investments,” he added.
Senate deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros, in her opening statement, said Cha-cha is not the solution to the country’s economic problems, stressing that the “real challenges” that hinder local and foreign investments are corruption, red tape, bureaucracy, and high cost of electricity.
She said the Constitution should not be blamed for this.
Hontiveros said that laws like the Foreign Bank Liberalization Act, Retail Trade Liberalization Act, Public Services Act, and Foreign Direct Investments Act; and other pending legislations are already in place to address the problem.
Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said he is in favor of amending the restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Charter but said this can be done just like passing a regular legislation.
Quoting the late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Azcuna said amendments to the Charter can be the same procedure as “making an ordinary law.”
“It should be flexible. It should be in legislative form, not in a very hard-to-change constitutional provision. I think the other countries that have restrictive economic provisions don’t have it in their Constitution. They have it in ordinary laws which can be easily changed. Economic policies should be flexible to meet changing times in the economy,” Azcuna said.
He said the process should involve both houses of Congress coming up with their respective versions of the proposed amendments and then reconciling them into a single version which will then be presented to the people for ratification through a plebiscite.
“That is, you can present your resolution in the Senate and the other resolution in the House. You compare both and then you reconcile versions, come out with a final version, and then vote three-fourths in the Senate, three-fourths of the House,” he said.
Economist Gerardo Sicat said: “We have suffered as a nation in failing to achieve the goals of economic development over a long period of time. It has made our country more subject to greater volatility because of the failure to achieve major continuous progress our development efforts.”
He said the restrictive provisions hampered the country’s progress as it failed to attract foreign capital, which the government needs to sustain sufficient “savings to generate that high level of development.”
“These restrictive economic provisions have been at the heart of our economic nationalism as a young nation even before we became independent. At this slow process of adoption, we will become a tailender in overall progress within the region… Undertaking the amendments will be the biggest boost that we need,” he stressed.
TIME FRAME
Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri thumbed down the time frame suggested by the House of Representatives.
House leaders have urged the Senate to approved RBH No. 6 before Congress adjourns for the Holy Week break in March.
“We will be falling into a trap of any deadline because to discuss such an important matter needs time. It needs study, it cannot be rushed like any other regular bill that is just approved without thinking,” Zubiri said.
He assured the public that the Senate will produce the best version of amendments to the Charter which will be beneficial to the people.
He said sub-committee chairman Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara can take his time in conducting the hearings.
“The timeline is in your hands if you feel it necessary that we must discuss this with all members of society, not only our learned luminaries here, as well as different sectors that will be affected by proposed amendments to the Constitution,” he told Angara.
Zubiri added Angara should “not to listen to the noise” as he urged his colleagues in the Senate to act like statesmen when discussing proposed changes to the Constitution.
Zubiri said Cha-cha deliberations will be held in the mornings so senators can continue with their work as legislators in the afternoon.
He said they will also come up with rules so they will be prepared in members of the lower chamber insist on introducing amendments other than economic revisions to the Constitution.
