Palace thumbs down ‘piecemeal’ Cha-cha
Initiating Charter change (Cha-cha) through a mere concurrent congressional resolution will not be enough, presidential spokesman and chief legal counsel Salvador Panelo said yesterday.
He was reacting to Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez’s filing Concurrent Resolution No. 1 seeking changes in some political and economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
Panelo said the lawmakers should stick to the acceptable modes of amending the Charter if they want their effort to gain ground.
“You amend it by way of a constituent assembly – introducing amendments to the Constitution and ratified by the people, or by a constitutional convention, or by the initiative of the people. That’s the only way or three ways to amend it,” Panelo said.
“There is no such thing as concurrent only, it’s just a resolution. You do not amend the Constitution by concurrent resolution,” he said.
In his resolution, Rodriguez proposed that the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” be inserted in 11 parts of the Constitution that limit foreign ownership of land and businesses, including telecommunications and mass media. He is the first to file an
economic Cha-cha resolution.
He also filed a second resolution seeking a shift to the federal system.
“If that is just a proposal by him, then it’s a proposal. But he cannot do it by way of passing a law, amending the provision of the Constitution,” Panelo said, referring to Rodriguez’s proposal.
President Duterte’s avoiding discussion of Charter change in his latest State of the Nation Address (SONA) has spawned speculations he has lost interest in the issue.
“But anything that will benefit the Filipinos by way of amending certain provisions of the Constitution, we will always be in support of that,” Panelo said of fresh efforts to change the Constitution.
He said the Palace would also leave it up to lawmakers to decide on proposals to extend the terms of lawmakers and increase the number of senators.
“We will leave it to the judgment of the people in a plebiscite when such proposed amendment is submitted to them for ratification,” he said.
“It’s the people who will decide whether or not they will extend the term or limit the term of senators and members of Congress,” Panelo said.
House leaders, meanwhile, said a “surgical” change in the language of the economic provisions of the Constitution has greater chances of succeeding than a wholesale revision of the basic law of the land.
“I think most sectors of the nation agree that there is a need for economic Charter change. I believe that the Senate and the business community will support it. So it will most likely succeed,” deputy speaker and Pampanga Rep. Aurelio Gonzales Jr. said.
He expressed confidence that the House would be able to convince senators to go for economic Cha-cha.
“It’s less controversial than revising the Charter’s political provisions,” he said.
Gonzales has filed the second economic Cha-cha resolution in the House.
Business support
Another House leader, Rep. Mikee Romero of party-list group 1-Pacman, said he has no doubt that the business community would support the effort to install a mechanism to relax the Constitution’s economic provisions if the situation requires it.
Romero, a billionaire businessman who heads the 54-member Party-list Coalition, said Filipino and foreign businessmen have been suggesting that foreign ownership restrictions of land and businesses be eased to allow the entry of more foreign investments.
“I am sure that this proposal, if it materializes, will enable our country to attract more foreign investments, which will translate into more jobs and income for our people and sustained economic development for the nation,” he said.
In Joint Resolution No. 4, Gonzales limited his surgical Cha-cha to changing the language of two economic provisions on the national economy and patrimony, and one political proviso on the term of office of House members.
He suggested that private corporations or associations, “whose shares of stocks are owned or controlled at least 60 percent by Filipino citizens,” be allowed to lease “alienable lands of the public domain” for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.
Gonzales’ second proposed economic amendment puts a qualification on the 60-percent Filipino ownership of a public utility enjoying a franchise grant from Congress.
The recommended new provision requires that such ownership be based on “voting” capital, instead of voting and non-voting capital. It also limits the life of the franchise to 25 years, instead of 50 years.
However, the suggested amendment authorizes Congress to “change the voting capital requirement and the period of the franchise…considering national welfare and security, and for this purpose, such entities shall be managed by the citizens of the Philippines.”
As for the term of office of House members, Gonzales is proposing a change from three years with two reelections, or a total of nine consecutive years, to five years with one reelection, or a total of 10 years.
His resolution does not touch the tenure of senators, which is six years with one reelection for a total of 12 consecutive years.
Joint Resolution No. 4 is a departure from Resolution of Both Houses No. 8, which Gonzales and then representative Eugene de Vera of party-list group ABS filed in the last Congress and which advocated a comprehensive revision of the Constitution to give way to a federal system.
Rodriguez, meanwhile, has proposed that the term of office of House members, senators and local officials be fixed at four years with two reelections.
He suggested that the Senate be composed of 27, instead of 24, members to be elected from nine regions, instead of at large, with three senators per region.
A congressman who did not want to be named said he does not like the idea of allowing lawmakers to relax or lift economic restrictions in the Constitution.
“That means lobbying by big businesses, and lobbying means corruption,” he said.
He said some business groups, wary of the prospect of lobbying and corruption, are proposing that lawmakers, in doing Cha-cha, should directly relax or lift the restrictions instead of authorizing themselves or their successors to do it.