Marcos says separate elections ‘too expensive’
PRESIDENT Marcos Jr. yesterday said he prefers the simultaneous conduct of the plebiscite on Charter amendments and the 2025 midterm elections because this is “practical” and would be “less costly” for the government.
“Kung paghihiwalayin natin ‘yang election at saka ‘yung plebiscite, parang dalawang eleksyon ‘yun eh, napakamahal. So, baka maaari kung isama natin ‘yang plebisito sa local elections na gagawin sa Mayo next year (If we hold the election and the plebiscite separately, these are two elections, it will be too expensive. So if it is possible, let’s integrate the plebiscite with the local elections in May next year),” the President said in a chance interview before he left for Australia where he is scheduled to address the Australian Parliament.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Tuesday said the government would save at least P13 billion if the Cha-cha plebiscite and 20205 midterm elections were held simultaneously.
He said the simultaneous holding of the two electoral exercises is “carefully being studied,” particularly the legal aspect of the plan.
“We’re studying it and I think there’s a potential there that we can possibly exploit. So, we’ll see. It really comes down to a practical thing… We have to take all of these things into account, and I think we’ll come to a good solution,” he added.
He acknowledged that Congress intends to finish Charter change deliberations by July this year, which is about 10 months away from the midterm elections.
If this happens, Marcos said Cha-cha proponents would have to wait until May next year to hold the plebiscite.
Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri said the Comelec pronouncement that the government can save P13 billion if the plebiscite for Charter change is held simultaneously with the 2025 elections is a “welcome” development.
“We welcome the statement made by Comelec chair George Garcia that the poll body is amenable to holding a plebiscite on Charter change (amendments) together with the 2025 midterm elections,” Zubiri said in a statement, adding that the amount to be saved can be utilized for government infrastructure projects and social programs which “will benefit our nation.”
“This amount could potentially fund the construction of around 5,200 classrooms.
Alternatively, it could be allocated to various other programs aimed at improving the lives of Filipinos, such as poverty alleviation initiatives, agricultural development projects or infrastructural improvements in rural areas,” he said.
Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara, who is the chairperson of the sub-committee of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, said the Senate will consult with the Comelec on the text of the rider question for the Cha-cha plebiscite which will be included in the ballots for the midterm polls next year.
“We will consult the Comelec kasi (because) I think the last plebiscite in the country (was in) 1980. We have to consult the Comelec as to what is the actual (questions) so we will be compliant,” he said, adding that the poll body should be able to make its final decision by the last quarter of the year if it can conduct the plebiscite simultaneously with the midterm elections next year.
Deputy Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II of Mandaluyong City said the President’s preference to have the proposed amendments submitted to a plebiscite next year simultaneously with the midterm elections is not only “practical” but also “economical” since the country would save billions by doing so.
He, however, cited Article XVII, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states that plebiscite “shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days” after the Comelec issues a certification.
Gonzales said the submission to the Comelec of the approved resolution should be done around November or December this year in time for the May midterm elections. “(It would work) so long as it would fall into the timeframe provided for by the Constitution,” he said.
BEFORE SONA
Angara yesterday said the upper chamber is eyeing to hold plenary debates on Resolution of Both Houses No. (RBH) 6 before the President delivers his State-of-the-Nation Address (SONA) on the last Monday of July this year.
In an interview with the Senate media, Angara said the sub-committee’s consultations and discussions on RBH 6 will continuously be held so they can tackle the proposed amendments in plenary before they adjourn sine die from May 25 to July 21.
“Ang usapan namin, hopefully, madala na namin sa floor before the SONA. For debate ng buong Senado (Our agreement is that, hopefully, we can bring it to the floor before the SONA. For debate of the whole Senate),” Angara said.
According to the legislative calendar of the Second Regular Session of the 19th Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives will go on a summer break from March 23 to April 28. Regular sessions will resume on April 29 up to May 24, and Congress will be on sine die adjournment from May 25 to July 21.
Regular sessions will resume on July 22 when the President delivers his SONA, which will be the start of the Third Regular Session of the 19th Congress.
Based on Angara’s projection, the Senate is expected to hold its plenary debates on RBH 6 from April 29 to May 24.
With this, Angara said there will be enough time for the Senate to finish the discussions and pass the proposed amendments by October this year.
“Palagay ko may oras pa. It’s only March. Marami pang buwan bago mag-October, so, maraming oportunidad para plantsahin ‘yung mga detalye (I think there’s enough time. It’s only March. There are still many months before October. So, there will be more opportunities to iron out the details),” he said.
Angara said the sub-committee will be holding regional consultations on RBH 6 to get the insights of various stakeholders.
Angara said the Senate will adopt the “principle” of the late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas that proposed amendments to the Charter should be approved like ordinary measures.
SENATE RULES
Sen. Chiz Escudero urged his colleagues yesterday to revisit and amend the Rules of the Senate before pushing through with another hearing of the sub-committee.
Speaking at the plenary yesterday afternoon, Escudero noted that the Senate Rules does not have a specific section on procedures on constitutional amendments, unlike the House, which are categorically stated in Sections 143 and 144 under Rule XXI.
“I raise this because we do not have a counterpart or similar rule. And right now, as things stand, the House of Representatives it seems has a rule on how to adopt proposals or reject proposals to amend the constitution while the Senate does not,” Escudero said.
Section 143 of House Rule XXI states that “the Congress, upon a vote of three fourths (3/4) of all its Members, may propose amendment(s) to or revision of the Constitution.” On the other hand, Section 144 prescribes that “proposals to amend or revise the Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any Member. The adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills.”
Escudero said the Senate must also resolve the “prejudicial question” raised by Sen. Risa Hontiveros in the sub-committee’s previous hearing pertaining to doing a constituent assembly by separate sessions of the House and the Senate or through a joint session by both houses.
“If, for example, we follow or take the position that there has to be a joint session, that separate sessions are not allowed, then clearly, we are wasting our time. I bring this up again to reiterate the prejudicial question raised by Senator Hontiveros because for me, this matter has to be settled before we proceed with further hearings, especially the hearing on March 5,” Escudero said.
“That is the reason, Mr. President, why I urge caution and prudence over a hasty action on this matter and appeal to the Committee on Rules to study this matter and decide this with dispatch as well so that we would be proceeding in accordance with the rules that are similar with that of the House,” he also said.
CENTRALIZED POWER?
At the House, Bayan Muna chair Neri Colmenares warned that adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to lift the economic restrictions on public utilities, basic education and advertising will give Congress centralized power “that practically amends the Constitution.”
“I think this should not be allowed and contemplated,” the former Bayan Muna party-list lawmaker, who was among the resource persons of the House Committee of the Whole on economic Charter change, told lawmakers late Tuesday afternoon.
The former militant lawmaker also expressed fears that empowering Congress to lift economic restrictions would also only elicit lobby funds from the business sector.
“Congress will be buffeted by intense lobbying and lobby money from transnational corporations and many interests, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chair, to have their beneficial provision in the Constitution,” he said.
The House leadership has adopted the mode proposed by the late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas by intending to pass Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 like an ordinary bill through the constitutional vote of three-fourths.
The proposal to amend the “restrictive” economic provisions is limited to the public service sector, education, and the advertising industry, which lawmakers said should be open to 100 percent foreign ownership to attract more investors and create more jobs for Filipinos
Gonzales dismissed Colmenares’ concerns, calling it a mere “scare tactic” since congressmen have made it clear that they are not changing the economic provisions to push for vested interests.
“Hindi ko maintidihan kasi ano yung vested interest dito (I don’t understand what the vested interest here is). Nakikita naman ng lahat na (Everybody sees) there are only three amendatory provisions that we’re taking up,” Gonzales told a joint press conference with other House leaders yesterday.
The veteran lawyer-lawmaker, who is one of acting floor leaders during the Cha-cha deliberations, added: “(What was said was) if you give the legislative power to Congress to change the proportion of ownership as provided for by the Constitution, masa-subject daw kami sa mga magla-lobby (we’ll be subjected tp lobbying). Si Neri, kaibigan ko ‘yan, nakasama ko sa Congress ‘yan nang matagal, we call each other ‘brother,’ (Neri is my friend, weve been colleagues in Congress for a long time and we call each other ‘brother.’
But with due respect to what he stated yesterday, sa akin, pananakot lang ‘yan e (to me that’s just fear-mongering).”
Gonzales said the more important question that should be asked is, “Do we really need to amend the provision? Do we really need to amend or free up the economic provision by the Constitution?”
In the same press briefing, South Cotabato Rep. Peter Miguel countered Colmenares’ assertion, saying adding the five-worded phrase highlights the need for the Constitution to be flexible and for Congress to be able to craft laws to adapt to global shifts and sustain competitiveness.
Miguel said inserting the phrase is “perfect” because “in the context of globalization, Congress has to be given leeway, some legroom to make laws that are adaptable to changes that are more competitive.”
Davao Oriental Rep. Cheeno Miguel Almario said the phrase offers Filipinos a degree of flexibility to maximize investments entering the country and cited the amendments’ potential to address specific needs and services required by foreign direct investors, while Rep. Ray Reyes (PL, Anakalusugan) said that by “establishing these qualities, we’re setting up a framework for future Congresses to adjust according to the needs of the times.”
Another resource person, retired SC Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, however proposed that the five-worded amendment be decided upon separately by the House and the Senate by a vote of two-thirds of all members, which he said would be the “reasonable” requirement. — With Raymond Africa and Wendell Vigilia
