SENATORS are not inclined to support the House of Representatives’ move to amend the 1987 Constitution and open up the local business industry to foreign investors by easing economic restrictions in the country.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III said the Senate would not have the time to “take a quick look” into the merits of Resolution of Both Houses No. 2 since Congress has only five days more left before the sine die adjournment, which is on June 4.
“Anyway, the bills certified by the Palace as urgent have passed or are in advance stages in the Senate,” Sotto said.
The House of Representatives passed RBH No. 2 on second reading late Wednesday. Voting viva voce, majority members of the lower chamber supported the proposal to amend Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony), Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology; Arts, Culture, and Sports), and Article XVI (General Provisions) of the Constitution by inserting the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law.”
If the Senate approves RBH No. 2, which is principally authored by House Speaker Lord Allan Velasco, lawmakers would have a blank cheque to introduce measures in Congress that would lift restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution without actually amending the Charter.
Senate minority leader Franklin Drilon said a number of economic measures are already being acted upon in the Senate, including the proposed amendments to the Public Service Act, Retail Trade Liberalization Act, and Foreign Investments Act which he said are meant “to liberalize our investment climate without amending the Constitution.”
He also pointed out that the Corporate Recovery and Tax Incentives for Enterprises (CREATE) Act was already passed into law in March.
“My reading is that the senators are not inclined to support amendments to the Constitution at this time. It was not even in the agenda of the LEDAC (Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council) meeting yesterday (Wednesday), which means it is not a priority legislation,” Drilon said.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution are now being addressed, “relying heavily on existing jurisprudence which we are now trying to reconcile with the proposed amendments as contained in the said Senate bills.”
Lacson said another reason why senators are against amending the Constitution is the unsettled manner of voting by the members of the two Chambers — whether jointly or separately.
“The senators assert that only the Supreme Court can interpret the provision to amend or revise the Charter. The problem is the absence of the cause of action that would trigger the Court to act and resolve the matter,” Lacson said.
Sen. Grace Poe said an economic “cha-cha” would get less attention in the Senate since there are already foreign investment measures which have been certified as urgent by the President.
“The certified bills will already address the current economic concerns but with much better safeguards,” Poe said.
She said amendments to the Public Service Act will allow more foreign investments to come in to give better services to the public, subject to well-calibrated safeguards.
On the other hand, proposed amendments to the Foreign Investment Act will further ease strict restrictions under the Negative List, while the Retail Trade Liberalization Act will lower the paid-up capital to allow more businesses to come in and open up more local jobs.
She said the benefits of all these measures can be felt even without a Cha-cha.
“I am personally wary of a piecemeal revision of the Constitution. It is a living document which holds the aspirations of the people. It should only be revised under the strictest of scrutiny for the right reasons. You don’t just change it on a whim especially now that everyone is fearful of a creeping invasion in our shores. Tinkering with the Constitution should always be our last resort,” Poe said.
