Colmenares’ remarks on phrasing in Cha-cha a ‘scare tactic’ — solon
Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales II. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — A former lawmaker’s claim that using the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to amend the 1987 Constitution’s economic provisions could centralize powers to Congress is merely a scare tactic, Mandaluyong City Rep. Neptali Gonzales II said.
Gonzales in a press briefing on Wednesday was asked about Bayan Muna chairperson Neri Colmenares’ remarks about the dangers of leaving to Congress the decision on the rate of foreign ownership, as the legislature would supposedly be “buffeted by intense lobbying and lobby money” from companies who want to insert favorable provisions.
Gonzales said he considers Colmenares a friend, but the Mandaluyong representative thinks his former colleague’s statement was just a scare tactic.
“Si Neri, kaibigan ko ‘yan, nakasama ko sa Congress ‘yan nang matagal, we call each other ‘brother.’ But with due respect to what he stated yesterday, sa akin tingin ko lang dyan, pananakot lang ‘yan eh,” Gonzales, who is the floor leader of the House committee of the whole tackling Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7, said.
(Neri is my friend, I was with him in Congress for a long time, we call each other brother. But with due respect to what he stated yesterday, I think that is just a scare tactic.)
“Pananakot na we will be exposed to — if you give the power to the legislative power, to the Congress to change the proportion of ownership as provided for by the Constitution, masu-subject daw kami sa mga alam mo na, magla-lobby. Sa akin, pananakot lang ‘yan eh,” he added.
(It is making us fear that we will be exposed to — if you give the power to the legislative power, to the Congress to change the proportion of ownership as provided for by the Constitution, it would be subjected to lobbyists. But for me, that’s just a scare tactic.)
READ: Colmenares: Key phrase in Charter amendment centralizes power to Congress
According to Gonzales, the proper question should be whether or not there is a need to use the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in amending the Constitution. For the lawmaker, the phrase is necessary because it would make changing foreign ownership rates simpler, as it is very difficult to change provisions in the charter once they are set in stone.
“The better question is do we really need to amend the provision? Iyon ang mas mahalagang tanong eh. Kailangan ba talaga nating palitan, i-free nang konti iyong mga economic provision by the Constitution?” Gonzales asked.
(The more important question is, do we really need to amend the provision? Do we really need to amend or free up the economic provision by the Constitution?)
“Kita naman natin ano, ang hirap talagang mag-amend ng Constitution. Attempts have been made for the past several decades, three decades, at that, na either through a con-con, tumawag ang House, con-con or constituent assembly but for one reason or the other, it gets stuck in the Senate eh. Hindi talaga pumapalaot eh,” he added.
(We can see that it’s hard to amend the Constitution. Attempts have been made for the past several decades — three decades, at that — the House called for either a con-con or constituent assembly but for some reason, it gets stuck in the Senate. It doesn’t set sail.)
READ: Too late for economic Cha-cha, analysts say
Under RBH No. 7 and the Senate’s RBH No. 6 — which the House version was mirrored from — three parts of the 1987 Constitution would be amended by inserting the phrase “unless provided by law”:
- Section 11 of Article XII (National Patrimony and Economy), where the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is inserted in the provision that bars foreign ownership of a public utility shall except in a case where 60 percent of the total capital belongs to Filipino citizens
- Section 4 of Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) where the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is inserted in the provision that bars foreign ownership of basic educational institutions except in a case where 60 percent of the total capital belongs to Filipino citizens.
- Section 11 of Article XVI (General Provisions) where the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is inserted in two portions: first, the provision that bars foreign ownership in the advertising industry except in a case where 70 percent of the total capital belongs to Filipino citizens; and in the provision that limits foreign investors participation in entities to how much their capital share is.
READ: House leaders file RBH 7, mirrors Senate version of economic amendments
In effect, this would allow the House and the Senate to identify the percentage of foreign ownership that would be allowed for the industries mentioned. However, former Supreme Court chief justice Reynato Puno who was present at the start of the RBH No. 7 discussions on Monday said that using this phrase might pave the way for questions on constitutionality.
READ: Puno cautions solons on phrasing in Cha-cha drive
Several lawmakers and retired justice Adolfo Azcuna, on the other hand, believe that placing this phrase would make the Constitution’s previously restrictive economic policies more flexible.
Both the House and the Senate are discussing proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution, in a bid to allow more foreign investments to come in. Earlier, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said that he is looking towards holding the plebiscite for the economic charter change side by side with the 2025 midterm elections to save funds. With reports from Barbara Gutierrez, INQUIRER.net intern
