THE Commission on Elections (Comelec) yesterday said as much as P13 billion can be saved by the government if the national and local polls and the plebiscite for the proposed Charter Change will be held simultaneously in May 2025.
In an interview, Comelec chairman George Garcia said the separate holding of the Cha-cha referendum would require a budget of at least P13 billion.
“If it will be held separately, we will need P13 billion because it will involve national and overseas voters. It is like holding another barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
We need P13 billion. That is quite big,” Garcia said.
“But if we hold it simultaneously, there will be no additional expenses, no additional expenditures in supplies and other paraphernalia,” he said, adding that the only additional expense that would be incurred is the extra honoraria to be given to members of the Electoral Board (EB).
Garcia said they will ask for an additional P2,000 in honoraria for every EB member should the simultaneous electoral exercises happen.
“We may ask the government for at least an additional P2,000 for every teacher serving on Election Day. If we have 1 million teachers, it may require P2 billion in funds,” he said.
“This is not part of their regular jobs as teachers. Therefore, they are really giving extra effort into this. It is but right that we give them a small increase in their compensation,” he said.
On Monday, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri said President Marcos Jr. wants the plebiscite to ratify the proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution to be held simultaneously with the 2025 midterm polls.
Garcia has said the Comelec can hold the May 2025 national and local polls simultaneously with the Cha-Cha plebiscite, noting that their preparations will remain the same even if the midterm polls will feature twin electoral exercises.
He said that based on the preliminary study conducted by the Comelec on the sample ballots to be used come May 2025, “our ballot size will (only) be longer to accommodate the plebiscite questions.”
He said that even the voting machines to be used by the Comelec are capable of reading “yes” or “no” answers to the plebiscite questions.
STICK TO DEADLINE
Party-list Reps. Margarita Nograles (PL, PBA) and Ramon Rodrigo Gutierrez (PL, 1-RIDER) said they would rather hear the President directly say that he prefers the plebiscite to be held next year.
Nograles said: “Sana po ‘yung mga pinag-uusapan (We hope things discussed behind) closed doors is respected in terms of confidentiality na ‘yung Presidente lang makakasabi kung ano talaga ‘yung gusto niya (that only the President can say what he really wants).”
Gutierrez also said he would rather hear the President’s preference straight from the horse’s mouth: “This is just sinabi ni SP (Senate President) based on a conversation.
Although ideally, I would like to hear it personally from the President.”
Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said the House of Representatives will stick to its plan to approve the resolution seeking to amend the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution before Congress goes on a Lenten break next month despite Zubiri’s claim that the President prefers the plebiscite to be held alongside the 2025 midterm elections.
“I personally would want this discussion on the economic provision done before the break for the Holy Week. Actually, that’s the original plan,” told a joint press conference which is now being held daily by the House leadership.
The House leadership has been urging the Senate to honor Zubiri’s vow to approve Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 before Congress goes on recess next month so that it could approve its counterpart measure, RBH No. 7, and send the proposed amendments to the Comelec for the holding of a plebiscite.
Speaker Martin Romualdez even said last Monday that the House is also willing to adopt the Senate’s version “in toto” in case the approved versions have differing provisions to fast-track the process.
Adiong said conducting the plebiscite for economic constitutional amendments simultaneously with the 2025 midterm elections “will open (it) up to several political interpretations and this might be used as a political campaign and might discredit the intentions of the administration.”
“I would want that to end as soon as possible time because come 2025 it would be an election season. And the reason why we are fast-tracking this discussion, this amendment is we want to insulate this from political innuendos and political interpretation. This might be used as a campaign slogan,” he said.
Nograles also urged senators to consider avoiding extending its deliberations on RBH 6 until the sine die adjournment, saying “it’s possible that we have a fruitful exhaustive discussion which still follows the original plan, which they said can be finished before Holy Week.”
LEGAL CHALLENGE
Puno cautioned the House of Representatives that adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to lift the “restrictive” economic provisions of the Constitution is susceptible to legal challenges.
“The use of the phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ is vulnerable to another constitutional challenge. Number one your Honors, allowing Congress to use its lawmaking powers to amend the Constitution may be questionable,” Puno told the House convened as the Committee of the Whole early Monday evening.
The retired chief magistrate said another legal challenge posed by adding the five-worded phrase is the fact that the laws that will be passed by Congress to completely open some economic sectors to foreign investors will not be approved by the people in a proper referendum since it will be approved as an ordinary legislation.
Puno said that under all Philippine Constitutions, the 1935 Constitution, the 1973 Constitution and the present 1987 Constitution, the amendments, regardless if introduced through a constitutional convention, a constituent assembly of lawmakers, or through a people’s initiative, “have to be approved by the people in what is known as an obligatory referendum.”
“That approval by the people cannot be set aside, cannot be short-circuited,” said the former chief justice who was the highest-ranking former High Court magistrate invited to be one of the House’s resource persons.
The House leadership has adopted the mode proposed by the late constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas by intending to pass RBH No. 7 like an ordinary bill through the constitutional vote of three-fourths because the Charter does not expressly say if the House and the Senate should vote jointly or separately on Charter change.
If there are differences between the House’s and the Senate’s versions of the measure, a bicameral meeting can also be held to reconcile it although it is unlikely to happen now that the House has already declared that it will adopt the Senate’s version.
The proposal to amend the “restrictive” economic provisions is only 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.
Puno said the “way out” of the legal dilemma is “just to do away with this phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” and repeal all the three constitutional provisions in question, Articles Section 11 of Article 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).
“Just repeal these three restrictive provisions of the Constitution, which we want to be out.
And in addition, you just repeal Article II Section XIX of the 1987 Constitution which states ‘the state shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos,’ include that in the repeal,” he said.
Retired SC Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, a member of the Constitutional Commission that crafted the 1987 Constitution however said Puno’s proposal to repeal the three provisions in question could be “dangerous” since the entry of foreign investments would be unregulated.
“We should regulate the entry of foreign investors than be totally silent,” said Azcuna.
“There should be a framework on the entry of foreign investments, only that it should be changeable by legislation.”
Azcuna reminded lawmakers that he was the one who originally proposed the five-worded amendment to then-Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., under the last Aquino administration, after consultations with business leaders, including the late Washington Sycip.
“’Unless otherwise provided by law, that’s my idea and Speaker Sonny Belmonte agreed and adopted my idea and drafted RBH No. 2,” he said. “I believe you may change the provisions by making it changeable by legislation. It must be done in precise places, don’t change the bedrock principles.”
Once the measure is approved by a vote of three-fourths in each House, Azcuna said the proposed amendments can be submitted to Comelec for plebiscite and if there are still constitutional questions, a case may be filed with the SC to have a ruling on “a definitive standard legislative procedure, a correct method in adopting proposed amendments.”
Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, chair of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, asked Azcuna if the country should only open three economic fields to foreign investment: “When we open the gate, do we open the entire country to announce to the whole world we’re now open to business to all foreign businessmen?”
Rodriguez said there is also a need to open to foreign investors the exploration of natural resources, mass media and the lease of public lands, which, at present is limited to 1,000 hectares for 25 years.
Azcuna however said it is up to the Senate and House to decide the extent of the provisions to be amended while stressing that the economy should still be effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Rodriguez said that he would make a motion at the proper time to amend RBH No. 7 by lifting and repealing all prohibitions and limitations to foreign investments in the Constitution and empowering Congress to pass laws regulating foreign investment. “That is the kind of amendment we need. we cannot be piecemeal restrictions,” he said.
The constitutional amendments panel chair’s move later prompted Rep. France Castro (PL, ACT), a member of the militant Makabayan bloc, to say that she was “worried,” asking how the leadership could guarantee that only three provisions would be changed since Rodriguez wants a total of eight provisions amended.
“Paano ma-eensure kami na opposed? (How can you ensure us who are opposed to Charter change?)” Castro said, to which acting floor leader Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales II gave a lengthy answer, saying now is the only time to amend the 37-year-old Charter since the Senate has become open to the amendments and has been assured that no political changes will be proposed. — With Wendell Vigilia