CHIEF Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile yesterday said restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution can be easily relaxed by inserting the clause “unless otherwise provided by law” to provisions being eyed for revision.
Enrile was a resource person during Wednesday’s hearing of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes that discussed proposed changes to the Charter being pushed by the House of Representatives.
The former Senate president said the clause can give Congress “flexibility” to contract or expand the participation of foreign direct investments in the country which will be good to the economy.
“To deal with our constitutional changes, there’s nothing difficult about inserting a clause ‘otherwise provided by law’,” he added.
“Kailangan i-amend pero hindi naman go to other extreme na open agad (The Constitution needs to be amended but not to go to the extreme that you will open it immediately). We need to give Congress the power to determine how much and when. That’s why idagdag ninyo na ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ (That why you should add the clause ‘unless otherwise provided by law’) Who provides the law? (It’s) Congress,” he also said.
Enrile said amending the economic provisions of the Constitution will open up the economy to foreign direct investments, since recently enacted laws such as the Foreign Direct Investments Act, Public Services Act, and Retail Trade Liberalization Act are not enough to relax the restrictive economic provisions even if implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for them are issued.
He said there are provisions in the Constitution which limits the participation of foreigners in businesses in the country, such as the section on foreign ownership.
Under the Charter, real estate properties can only be 40 percent owned by foreigners, with the remaining 60 percent owned by a Filipino partner.
“So that we will have flexibility, give to Congress the decision to contract or expand the participation of foreign money, direct investments to our economy. After all they cannot take out this factory and bring it home. They cannot take out the land that they will produce if they reclaim around all the islands of the country. It stays here. They cannot go home, we should not do that because nobody will ever come and help us if we do that,” Enrile said.
“Kung sinabi ng Saligang Batas na 60-40, hindi mo mababago ‘yun. Pero kung sinabi ng Saligang Batas na 60-40 ‘unless otherwise provided by law,’ anytime pwedeng baguhin ng Kongreso. Pwedeng tanggalin momentarily ‘yung 60-40 at ibalik later on, or flexible ka (If the Constitution says 60-40, you cannot change that. But if the Constitution says 60-40 ‘unless otherwise provided by law,’ anytime Congress can change that. You can momentarily remove that 60-40 and retain it later on. You have flexibility),” he said.
“Ang magmamando ay ang Kongreso but of course, with the advice and consent of the President, always. Although the three branches of government are supposed to be separate and independent from one another, they must also coordinate, not for themselves, but for the country and the people (Congress will dictate [the conditions] but of course, it should be with the advice and consent of the President, always. Although the three branches of government are supposed to be separate and independent from one another, they must also coordinate, not for themselves, but for the country and the people),” he added.
Enrile told senators he attended the hearing not as the Marcos administration’s chief presidential legal adviser but in his personal capacity.
WHY CON-CON?
Enrile said he is in favor of Cha-cha, which he said should have been done “yesterday,” and should include amendments that will remove the prohibitions on the use of nuclear energy which he said was the most “unwanted provision of the Constitution.”
He added amending the political provisions can be done separately as this “will take time to handle.”
However, Enrile said he was puzzled why the House of Representatives is pushing for the constitutional convention mode in amending the Charter, which he said is a “disservice” to the Filipinos as it would be expensive for the government.
“Ano ba ang dahilan na con-con ang gusto ng Kamara? Ano ang dahilan? Hindi nila kaya ‘yung mga minumungkahi ninyo na amendments? (Why does the House of Representatives want a con-con? What is the real reason? Can they not handle your proposed amendments?),” he asked.
Enrile said the con-con approach will burden taxpayers too much since the government will need to spend billions, and the expenses can go beyond the allowed or allocated amount once con-con delegates are elected by the people and the meetings start.
“To have a constitutional convention will entail billions of pesos to do the work that can be done simply by Congress through con-ass (constitutional assembly)…You will have to elect the members who may not even know what government is, who may yet become tools of incumbent political powers in the country,” he said.
Besides, he said a con-con is unnecessary since lawmakers only need to add the clause “unless otherwise provided by law.”
