Solons reiterate: No political amendments in economic Cha-cha

MANILA, Philippines — For the nth time, lawmakers from the House of Representatives maintained that political amendments are not part of the economic Charter change amid claims from former President Rodrigo Duterte that term extension is the true agenda of Congress.

In a press briefing on Wednesday, Lanao del Norte 1st District Rep. Mohamad Khalid Dimaporo speculated that Duterte — who once joked that he does not want the work of lawmakers — may have not been aware of the proceedings in the House, noting that solons cannot unanimously push for political provisions.

Dimaporo explained that Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7 must align with the Senate’s RBH No. 6, and both have not pushed for political amendments.

“Maybe that he hasn’t been clarified on what’s happening here in Congress. And that is we have our legislative process and when it comes to regular bills that can happen in the bicam[eral conference committee].  But if you listen to the debates in the Plenary when it comes to RBH6 and RBH7, there needs to be synchronization between the House and the Senate,” Dimaporo said.

“So, when he has that claim that this is about term extensions […] that this will be magicked during the bicam, I don’t see that happening. It’s very clear, it’s in black and white that we’re only dealing specifically with the economic provision,” he added.

READ: Romualdez on RBH 7: Mission is to amend economic provisions

Assistant Majority Leader and La Union 1st District Rep. Paolo Ortega also noted that political amendments were never discussed in either of the Senate and the House’s committee hearings, stressing that talks swirled around opening restrictions to public utilities, basic education, and advertising industries.

“In the previous press cons, we issued a statement that we’re only doing economic Cha-cha, purely economic Cha-cha even if you watch the debates in the Senate, the House, there were never discussions about politics, we said that during the debates we have heard a lot of resource speakers — even those on the negative side — talk only about economic Cha-cha,” Ortega said.

“They were even spilling out statements that maybe we can do this or that, they are not totally against economic Cha-cha, because we have never discussed a single thing about anything na political, extension of terms, anything political, we have never talked about this,” he added.

The lawmakers’ reactions came after Duterte, during a prayer rally for Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KJC) founder Apollo Quiboloy at the Liwasang Bonifacio on Tuesday, lashed out again against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration.

In his classic, expletive-laden speech, Duterte urged Quiboloy’s supporters to be vigilant regarding attempts to alter the Constitution and usher in term limit extension.

Duterte also made references to the constitutional amendments pushed by the President’s late father, former president Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who stayed in power for over two decades until his dictatorship was overthrown by a peaceful revolution.

“Ito ‘yong Konstitusyon ngayon.  Bantay kayo dito, bantay kayo dito, it would have a long and lasting miserable life for you all.  Ito ‘yong Konstitusyon natin.  Ang una talagang gumalaw nito, iniba-iba niya, si Marcos.  Maniwala ka’t hindi, after a few decades, ang pangalawang taong gustong kumalkal ng Constitution natin, p*tang *na, Marcos ulit,” Duterte said.

(This is our Constitution now.  You have to guard this because it would lead to a long and lasting miserable life for you all.  This is our Constitution.  The first person to alter this, really, was Marcos Sr.  Whether you believe it or not, after a few decades, the second person to fiddle with our Constitution, son of b*tch, it’s a Marcos again.)

“Ano ang gusto nila?  Pahabaan ang Constitution, kasi noon nga, nilampastangan ni Marcos, napaalis siya sa Pilipinas, sinauli ‘yong original […] Yong Constitution na inabot under which Marcos was elected, gano’n din, one term, six years.  Ito excuses na lang ito kagaya nito ni Marcos noon sa tatay niya.  Ang punterya talaga nila, ito, dito, ito, ‘yong term extension,” he added.

(What do they want?  They want to extend term limits because in the past, Marcos trampled on the Constitution and was exiled from the Philippines, and then we reverted to the original.  […]  The Constitution that the younger Marcos was elected on was the same as mine, one term, six years.  These are just excuses Marcos is making similar to what his father did.  Their goal is really term extension.)

Lawmakers and President Marcos himself have insisted several times in the past that they only want economic amendments to the Constitution.  The House’s RBH No. 7 and the Senate’s RBH No. 6 propose to open public utilities, basic education, and advertising to foreign investment and foreign ownership.

READ: Marcos wants only economic reforms in Constitution

The following provisions of the 1987 Constitution will be amended by adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law”:

• 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 shall 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

If the proposed amendments are approved by the House and the Senate and are ratified in a plebiscite, it would allow Congress to pass laws that would prescribe the rate of foreign ownership for these industries.