Padilla: Bid to amend charter’s economic provisions now dead, ‘Political naman’
MANILA, Philippines—The proposed amendments to economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution is now “dead,” Senator Robin Padilla declared on Thursday.
According to Padilla, only four senators — all belonging to PDP-Laban— backed the draft report earlier released by the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and revision which he chairs.
The four include him, Senators Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, Christopher “Bong” Go and Francis Tolentino.
“Ang malungkot po, talaga pong ang yung apat lang na PDP-Laban ang sumasang-ayon po dun sa committee report. Yung iba pong mga kasama natin na mga ginagalang natin, wala po silang sagot o pirma sa pinadala natin,” Padilla said in a press briefing.
(It’s sad that only four members of PDP-Laban agree with the committee report. Some of our colleagues whom we respect did not provide any response or signature to our submission.)
But he said he is no longer surprised since his colleagues had been saying all along that the proposed amendments had no future in the Senate.
“Kung (dati) naghihingalo siya, ngayon namatay na,” the senator later said.
(If it was in critical condition before, now it’s dead.)
Padilla clarified only the push for amendments to economic provisions is dead, and not the entire charter change bid.
There are other measures pending in the Senate seeking to amend the Constitution, particularly its political provisions.
“Kung ayaw nila ng economic provisions, political naman,” he said.
(If they don’t like economic provisions, then let’s talk about political [provisions.])
One of these proposals would allow a sitting president to seek another term, according to the senator, noting that the current six-year term is not enough for a good leader.
“Sa akin po? Six years, kulang sya para sa isang magaling na presidente. Pero para sa isang engot na presidente, yung six years sobra, sobra yun,” Padilla said.
(For me? Six years is not enough for a good president. But for a stupid president, those six years are excessive. Way too much.
“So sana maging four years na lang to — four years, four years — dahil yan naman ay hindi bago. Dating nasa Constitution na yan at na-practice na yan, so bakit hindi natin balikan yun?”
(So hopefully, it will be reduced to just four years— four years, four years — because that is not new. It used to be in the Constitution and has been practiced before. So why don’t we revisit that?)