THE House of Representatives yesterday vowed that the passage of Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 (RBH No. 7) seeking amendments to “restrictive” economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution will not be railroaded as all lawmakers will be afforded the opportunity to ask questions on the floor before putting it to a vote on Wednesday.
“Definitely, we will give all members of the House who would want to discuss, interpellate, and debate on the matter their opportune time,” Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe, who led authors of the resolution in sponsoring it on the floor, told a press conference.
He said the House leadership has allotted enough time for plenary debates based on the number of members who have manifested their intentions to ask questions on the proposed economic amendments, which the House leadership aims to approve on third and final reading next week before Congress goes on a Lenten break.
“Hindi lang isang araw, hindi lang dalawang araw kundi tatlong araw na debates (ang) deliberations on second reading (The deliberations for passage on second reading is not only one day, not just two days but three days) and hopefully by Wednesday, we can vote on the matter on second reading,” Dalipe said.
The House leader however said the plenary debates on RBH No. 7 will be shorter than the two-week proceedings of the Committee of the Whole House, where experts on law, education, advertising, the Constitution, and other resource persons were asked to give their views.
“So, mas mahaba po iyong oras doon sa Committee of the Whole House kasi mahaba rin iyong mga sagot ng ating mga resource person at (The discussions in the Committee of the Whole were longer because the answers of resource persons were also long and) we (wanted) to get all the data and inputs especially from those who have experiences in the global perspective,” Dalipe said.
Dalipe added: “I am so sure that this (plenary) will not be longer. Based on our experience, the plenary sponsorship and debate on the second reading of RBH7 will be quite a little bit shorter than those compared with the Committee of the Whole. Although we would exhaustively discuss this, that’s why we are giving three days for the debates on the second reading.”
In his sponsorship speech, Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio Gonzales of Pampanga said now is the time to amend the Constitution’s provisions and urged senators to join the House in its endeavor, which, he said, aims to attract more foreign investments to create jobs for Filipinos.
“I appeal to my colleagues in the Senate: There will never be a better time than now to amend the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution,” he said. “Let us not fail the Filipino people once more. We, in the House of Representatives, have exhausted every step to help our nation. It is time to work collectively and in harmony patungo sa Bagong Pilipinas.”
Gonzales urged his colleagues to “be guided by the legal bases of amending the Constitution, and recognize the wisdom of our resource persons” during the Committee of the Whole House hearings.
“They are one in saying that amending the economic provisions will pave the way for a better, more thriving Philippines. We need to accept that certain provisions of the 1987 Constitution, as noble and well-intentioned as they are, have already outlived their purpose,” he said.
Cagayan De Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, chair of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, was also among those who delivered sponsorship speeches.
Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Raymund Villafuerte said there is still a “good chance” for the Senate to pass its version of the resolution even if RBH No. 6, the upper chamber’s version of the measure, is still being deliberated upon by a subcommittee on the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments led by Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara, who earlier said the deliberations might reach until October even if Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri has previously vowed to have it approved this month.
Villafuerte pointed out that even as Zubiri, himself, has conceded that getting the constitutional three-fourths vote was a “big challenge,” he has also said that getting the votes of 18 senators remains “in the realm of possibilities.”
He said he was likewise “taking Sen. Sonny (Juan Edgardo) Angara’s word that certain senators opposing this measure could still change their mind after hearing the views of economic experts and legal luminaries on Charter amendments in the ongoing hearings conducted by the Senate subcommittee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes.”
Villafuerte said he was banking on Zubiri’s leadership in the Senate to work on his peers to get the three-fourths majority vote behind RBH 6, given that the Senate President is the principal author of the measure and had committed the Senate’s action on this resolution in a meeting with the President.
Those opposing RBH No. 6 claim they can muster seven or 8 votes to quash this proposal but Angara has pointed out that “the good thing is it is not yet time to vote.”
Villafuerte pointed out that the country’s economic managers along with economic experts and legal luminaries have stressed before the separate public hearings in the Senate and the House “the urgency for Charter change and how generating the same or higher level of foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows enjoyed by our neighbors in the region will remain futile for so long as we keep intact the antiquated protectionist provisions in the 1987 Constitution that restrict foreign participation in the domestic economy.”
The House leadership prefers to have the measure approved by both houses of Congress this month so that it could be sent to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) as soon as possible for the holding of a plebiscite since holding it alongside the 2025 midterm elections would only “politicize” the issue.
Zubiri has announced that President Marcos Jr. Wants the plebiscite for Charter change be done simultaneously with the 2025 elections to save public money, which the Comelec estimated to be at P13 billion.
The House leadership has adopted the mode proposed by the late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and intends to pass RBH No.7 like an ordinary bill through the constitutional vote of three-fourths.
RBH No. 6 and No. 7 are both titled “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 XII, XIV and XVI,” pertaining to public services, basic education, and advertising.
Proponents of the bill seek to lift the 40 percent limit on foreign ownership in the 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, Articles Section 11 of Ar ticle 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).
The only difference between the House and the Senate’s version is the provision found in RBH No. 6 which expressly states that the voting on the amendments should be undertaken separately by the two chambers because the Constitution, while requiring a three-fourths vote of all members of Congress, is silent on how the voting should be done.
