A DAY after President Marcos Jr. described the 1987 Constitution as “dynamic” and “flexible,” Sen. Robin Padilla sought to amend the economic provisions of the Charter and proposed that Congress convene into a constituent assembly (con-ass) and vote separately on the proposed revisions.
Padilla, who is the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, filed Resolution of Both Houses No. 3, which echoed repeated justifications that amendments to the Constitution are important “to accelerate economic growth and fulfill its international commitment” by removing the restrictive economic provisions in the charter.
Padilla said that while the Philippines has ratified international trade and investment liberalization treaties to secure foreign investments, the Constitution’s current economic provisions “restrict certain activities of the foreign investors on exploration, development and utilization of natural resources; ownership of private lands, grant of congressional franchises; ownership and operation of public utilities, ownership of educational institutions; and ownership and management of mass media and advertising.”
“These economic provisions are perceived to be barriers to trade and investment responsible for the continuous decline in foreign direct investments and placed the country as one of the most restrictive economies by international standards,” he said.
Padilla proposed that the Senate and the House of Representatives — by a vote of three-fourths of all members, with each House voting separately —amend Sections 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11 of Article XII; Section 4 (2) of Article XIV, and Section 11 (1) and (2) of Article XVI.
But Sen. Grace Poe said there is no need to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution at this time since the supposed restrictive provisions have already been addressed in the last Congress with the passage of the Retail Trade Liberalization Act, Public Services Act, and the Foreign Investments Act.
“So para sa akin, personal lang naman na opinyon, kung economic provision ang dahilan, hindi natin kailangan sa ngayon. Pero kung may ibang dahilan, katulad ng term extension, baka ‘yun ang dahilan, siguro kailangan pag-debatehan ‘yan dahil mas importante ba ang haba ng termino ng naninilbihan sa gobyerno o galing ng kanyang pagserbisyo sa gobyerno?
(In my personal opinion, we do not need charter change at the moment if the [restrictive] economic provisions are the [only] reason. But if there are other reasons, like term extension, maybe that is the reason, we need to have extensive debates on that. Does the length of terms to serve in government carry more weight than competence in public service?),” Poe said.
Poe said should a constitutional assembly be convened, all concerned parties, including the country’s economic managers, will be pre-occupied with the discussions, leaving unattended the more pressing issues that government must address.
Poe said what government can do to attract foreign investments is to promote the Philippines in the international community as a good place to invest in since restrictions in the economic provisions have been relaxed.
“Kaya nga siguro sa pag-iikot ng ating Pangulo sa iba’t ibang mga bansa ay puwede niyang sabihin, alam niyo puede na kayong mag invest sa telecommunications, puede na kayong magmay-ari ng tollways, at kung anu-ano pa, pati sa airlines. Baka hindi pa naipapahatid ang impormasyon na iyon. Kaya para sa akin walang kailangang palitan sa Konstitusyon pagdating sa economic provisions (The President can tell the different countries which he visits that they can already invest in telecommunications, they can own tollways, even airlines, and many more. Maybe these messages have not been conveyed yet. So, for me, we do not need to amend anything in the constitution when it comes to economic provisions),” she added.
