Ducks in water can’t do Cha-cha, can they?

For as long as Senate members do not trust that their counterparts in the House would stick only to amending restrictive economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution — and not touch political provisions therein as well — this attempt at Charter change (Chacha) looks dead in the water.

Certainly, senators have basis for distrust. Earlier this month, the main proponent in the House of Cha-cha via a Constitutional Convention (con-con), which the House voted for in mid-March, admitted that while efforts are aimed at amending restrictive economic provisions, it could very well go as far as amending the Charter’s political provisions as well.

Appearing on OneNews’ “The Chiefs,” Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez expressed his “wish that our delegates will stick to amendments.” And what if they don’t?

“It’s clear that the mandate of our goal is for economic reasons,” he said. “But as you very well know, when we have a con-con, there will be the supreme constituent power of the duly elected and appointed delegates. And aside from economic amendments, it will also be open to political amendments.”

So there you have it, the cat’s out of the bag.

On a recent TV talk show, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri articulated his exasperation over Cha-cha issues, asking the host, Karen Davila, “You honestly think in a con-con they will only be discussing economic provisions?”

He proceeded to wonder, “I don’t understand why our colleagues in the House would like to rush this when, in all honesty, we’ve already passed the Retail Trade Act of Sen. Koko Pimentel, we passed the Foreign Investments Act and the Public Service Act – all three in response to the problem of restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution. The PSA now allows foreign ownership of utilities, telcos, TV stations, even highways, subways, railway stations, airports...”

Also just recently, the National Economic and Development

Authority finally released the implementing rules and regulations for Republic Act No. 11659 or the Public Service Act.

“What else do we want to loosen up the Constitution where restrictive economic provisions are concerned?” asked Zubiri.

He was referring to a survey on why foreign direct investments have been bypassing the Philippines.

“The foreign chambers of commerce operating in the country were interviewed and they, over and above the issue of economic prohibitions in the Constitution, pointed to ease of doing business here as the main problem. There’s a law on that but unfortunately there’s still harassment on the local level — instead of three, seven working days, it takes months for local governments to release business permits. Corruption in agencies on the national level — there are still agencies releasing business permits, certificates, licenses over a period of five, six months! Every time I meet a (foreign) businessman, that’s the common complaint,” Zubiri said.

Another issue he said he hears about from foreign businessmen is peace and order. “That thing that happened to Degamo, does that inspire people to invest in the Philippines?”

He also cited the dire lack of marketing the country as an investment destination. “I’m envious when I open my TV and see ads on CNN, the BBC, commercials asking investors to invest in Brazil, in Thailand.. what about the Philippines? We don’t have any advertising. We have no marketing whatsoever urging foreign investors to invest in the country.”

Again, Zubiri underscored what could very well be his and his colleagues’ biggest fear about submitting the Constitution to amendments via the House preferred con-con: “Do you honestly think in a con-con they will only be discussing economic provisions? Hindi lang po ang economic provisions ng Constitution ang pag-uusapan dyan. Pwede nilang repasuhin down to the last article of the Constitution, baguhin lahat iyan, hindi lang economic provisions (They won’t only be tackling the economic provisions. They can review for amendments, change everything in the Constitution).”

What if the House insists on what, he said, is being discussed privately, that both chambers vote as one?

“If that comes to pass, 24 of us in the Senate will be wiped out by 301 congressmen, and the three-fourths vote would be reached without any say from the senators, even if we (senators) all vote against any resolutions submitted to a vote. Imagine if the provisions will be political amendments, including one calling for the abolition of the Senate. My goodness, the Philippine Senate as an institution will be wiped out! And that’s a real possibility, that the House will vote to get rid of the Senate. For as long as I can help it, I won’t let that happen, not on my watch,” declared the Senate President.

We see a duck, floundering, in the water.

“You honestly think in a con-con they will only be discussing economic provisions?

“That thing that happened to Degamo, does that inspire people to invest in the Philippines?