AS the House of Representatives started plenary debates on economic charter change, the proponents of Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 (RBH 7) conveyed a clear message to the Senate while affirming the constitutional validity of the procedural steps involved: “There will never be a better time than now to amend the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.”
Now is the time to amend the Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions, Deputy Speaker Aurelio Gonzales Jr. said during this sponsorship speech.
“Let us not fail the Filipino people once more. We, in the House of Representatives, have exhausted every step to help our nation. It is time to work collectively and in harmony towards Bagong Pilipinas,” he said.
Gonzales, an author of RBH No. 7, implored his colleagues to adhere to the legal foundations of constitutional amendments and heed the wisdom imparted by resource persons during the Committee of the Whole House hearings.
“They are one in saying that amending the economic provisions will pave the way for a better, more thriving Philippines. We need to accept that certain provisions of the 1987 Constitution, as noble and well-intentioned as they are, have already outlived their purpose,” he said.
Defending the proposed amendments on the ownership of public utilities, educational institutions, and advertising companies, Gonzales asserted that these changes would attract substantial investments, spark greater competition, improve service delivery, and generate high-quality jobs.
“By amending Section 11 of Article XII, our country can attract substantial investments and spark greater competition, leading to improved quality service delivery and high-quality jobs for the Filipino people. Likewise, the advanced technological knowledge that foreign corporations possess will significantly contribute to the development of our public utilities,” he said.
“By amending Paragraph 2, Section 4 of Article XIV, we are prioritizing education and nurturing intellectual capital, which are fundamental strategies for accelerating economic growth,” he said.
Regarding the advertising sector, Gonzales noted, “We are paving the way for Filipino creatives to be known worldwide.”
He emphasized the importance of including the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law,” highlighting its role in adjusting restrictions on foreign ownership through regular legislation and offering flexibility in policy-making.
“It is pursuant to Article 17, Section 1, Paragraph 1, which provides that ‘Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members,’” he added.
For his part, Majority Leader Manuel Jose M. Dalipe explained the significance of this historic shift in the country’s economic direction.
After a week of intense debates and discussions, Dalipe said the House stands on the verge of a crucial decision regarding these transformative reforms.
Committee Report No. 985, which adopts RBH 7 without amendments, is up for approval, marking a transformative journey to align the Philippines with the demands of a rapidly evolving global landscape, said Dalipe.
Dalipe urged his colleagues to approve the charter change, highlighting its crucial role in elevating the country’s standing in the global economy, securing a prosperous future, and ensuring a better life for Filipinos.
He called for overwhelming support, emphasizing the historic opportunity to transform the economic landscape and solidify the foundation for a thriving and inclusive society.
‘RBH 7 is constitutional’
Chairman Rufus Rodriguez of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendment affirmed the constitutionality of the procedure followed by RBH 7, emphasizing that its intended mode is rooted in the 1987 Constitution.
According to Rodriguez, RBH 7 aligns with paragraph 1, Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution, which allows Congress to propose amendments with a three-fourths vote of all its members, known as a “Constituent Assembly.”
Rodriguez clarified that since there is no mention of a joint session in the Constitution, each house may independently formulate amendments by a three-fourths vote, subsequently passing them to the other house.
He also addressed concerns about the political insertion of amendments, stating that the issue of whether Congress acts as one or two separate bodies is a “political question” for Congress to decide.
This flexibility, he argued, allows the houses to deliberate either jointly or separately, similar to ordinary legislation.
On the procedural side, Rodriguez pointed out that RBH 7, treated as a bill, follows the House of Representatives Rules of Procedure, ensuring a focused and specific subject matter. This, he said, eliminates the fear of extraneous political amendments.
Rodriguez underscored the efficacy of RBH 7, highlighting its power to produce the desired result.