IMAGE: Daniella Marie Agacer
MANILA, Philippines — Lawmakers still prefer that a possible plebiscite on the proposed amendments to the Constitution be held before the 2025 midterm elections to avoid politicizing the issue.
Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong said in a press briefing on Tuesday that voting on economic provisions’ amendments might be politicized as 2025 election candidates may harp on the discussions or even use it as a part of their platforms.
“Personally, I would want that to end the soonest possible time because come 2025 it would be an election season. And the reason why we’re fast-tracking this discussion and the amendments is because we want to insulate this from political innuendos and political interpretation. It just might be used as a campaign slogan. So it will muddle up again the information,” Adiong told reporters.
“We’ve been saying this all along. We want to insulate this issue on economic provisions… If we want to pass that and then simultaneously, with the holding of the elections, this will open up to several political interpretations. And this might [be] used as a political campaign,” he added.
Adiong and other lawmakers were asked about Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri’s recent statements about President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s preference for holding the plebiscite alongside the 2025 polls.
Zubiri said Marcos’ consideration was made out of a yearning to save public funds, because holding a plebiscite before the 2025 polls would cost around P12 to P14 billion.
READ: Marcos wants Cha-cha plebiscite alongside 2025 polls – Zubiri
But Adiong warned that the administration’s intentions about Charter change may be affected if the plebiscite is held alongside the 2025 polls
“The intention of the administration — to finalize the talks on amending the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution — may be affected, and it should not be a subject of political contest,” he noted.
Meanwhile, 1-Rider party-list Rep. Ramon Rodrigo Gutierrez said that, while he preferred that the original March deadline — as previously mentioned by Zubiri — be observed, the pronouncements by the president as relayed by the Senate president is a welcome development as it set a timeline for the adoption of proposals.
“So I guess on that point I wouldn’t say it would mean that there would be a delay, but definitely, the signal that it says to us — to me particularly — is that it seems that we have a deadline of sorts that they definitely want this to be done before the elections,” Gutierrez said.
“I think we would say that this is welcome in the sense that at least, we know that the president really wants charter change at least before 2025. So at least we have a working timeline. But of course, again, we would urge our colleagues in the Senate, at least as a priority. Hopefully, we don’t extend it all the way to sine die,” he added, referring to the sine die adjournment which starts on May 25.
READ: More reforms needed to unlock full benefits of Cha-cha
The House, as a Committee of the Whole, started discussions on Monday on the Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7, a proposed measure that seeks to amend three parts of the Constitution to open the country to foreign investments:
- 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 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
RBH No. 7 is patterned after the Senate’s RBH No. 6.
READ: Romualdez on RBH 7: Mission is to amend economic provisions
READ: House not rushing Senate on RBH 6, Cha-cha
Despite the House agreeing to mimic the Senate’s RBH No. 6, the schedule of proceedings has been a major contention between the two chambers of Congress. As early as February 6, Sen. Sonny Angara — head of the Senate subcommittee discussing RBH No. 6 — noted that billions would be saved if the plebiscite coincides with the 2025 polls.
Angara also said then that RBH No. 6 talks may reach up to October, which House leaders objected to as Zubiri gave a self-imposed deadline of adopting the resolution by March 2024.