SENATE President Francis “Chiz” Escudero yesterday said his position against Charter change (Cha-cha) has not changed despite his election as the leader of the upper chamber.
“While I have the utmost respect to Cong. (Edcel) Lagman, given my personal position on the issue, I don’t know where his hopes of ‘enhancing’ it is coming from,” Escudero said in a Viber message to the media.
He was referring to Lagman’s statement on Sunday that he is optimistic that there is a higher chance that the Senate will agree to amend the Constitution following the leadership change in the chamber last week.
Escudero said that while he respects the optimism of Lagman, he does not know where he got the notion that his original position has changed.
Escudero is one of the eight senators who have openly oppposed Cha-cha.
In an ambush interview later yesterday, Escudero said any amendments to be introduced to the Constitution should be based on trust, and must not be tarnished with any doubt as to its motive.
“Wala akong problema sa anumang uri ng pagpalit basta sabihin lang sa taumbayan ano ba talaga yun, at yun din ang hinihintay kong kasagutan (I see no problem introducing amendments to the Constitution as long as its objective is transparent. But until now I am still waiting for an answer to that),” he said.
He said he sees no reason to amend the Constitution for now since the so-called strict economic provisions being sought to be revised have already been remedied in the last Congress.
He said Charter change will be one of the issues that he will discuss with Speaker Martin Romualdez during their meeting, which he said has yet to be scheduled.
The House of Representatives has passed Resolution of Both Houses No. 7, its version of the economic Cha-cha which seeks to revise provisions in the Charter limited to public services, higher education, and advertising.
RBH 7 seeks to allow 100 percent foreign ownership on the three sectors, similar to the proposal under Senate’s RBH 6.
The only difference in the two versions is that the Senate wants both houses to vote separately, while the House has no provision on the mode of voting.
The Senate has yet to approve RBH 6. The last two public consultations on the proposal has been canceled due to the resignation of Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara as chairperson of the sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments which is discussing proposed measure.
UNICAMERAL CONGRESS
Also yesterday, Lagman said he prefers a unicameral legislature over the current bicameral one as provided for under the 1987 Constitution because having a single house of Congress would expedite the lengthy process of legislation.
“Gusto ko unicameral, para mabilis ang legislation at para ma- pinpoint ang responsibility, ang responsibility doon sa unicameral. Ngayon, nagpapasa ng responsibility ‘yung House o ‘yung Senado at tumatagal ‘yung legislation (I want it to be unicameral to expedite legislation and to pinpoint the responsibility [of passing laws], which will be clear if it is a unicameral (Congress). Now, the House or the Senate passes responsibility [to the other house] so it delays legislation,” Lagman told reporters.
Lagman, a veteran lawyer-lawmaker who is a leader of the opposition, made his preference known when asked if work on legislative measures like the House-approved divorce bill, of which he is the principal author, would be faster under a single legislature.
The Bicolano congressman however acknowledged that converting Congress into a one-chamber legislature “will have to entail a constitutional amendment, because that is an institutional change.”
He noted, though, that RBH 7 and RBH 6 only seek to amend what the House leadership describe as the “restrictive” economic provisions of the Constitution and does not tackle any political amendments.
Lagman’s stand is for the two chambers of Congress to meet jointly to propose and vote on constitutional amendments since the Constitution is silent on how the amendments should be voted upon.
Lagman said he has been told by “knowledgeable personages in the Senate” that the constitutional three-fourths vote to approve a proposed amendment “cannot be obtained in the Senate.” — With Wendell Vigilia
