Ako Bicol Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. (Photo from the Facebook account of Ako Bicol)
MANILA, Philippines — A former lawmaker who supports calls to amend the 1987 Constitution maintained that voters are the ones who will ratify Charter change proposals, and not respondents in a survey.
In a statement on Wednesday, former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. said that the Pulse Asia survey — results of which were released earlier — showed that discussions on Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7 raised awareness about constitutional amendments.
However, he clarified that the voters would vote during a plebiscite, and not in a survey.
“The Pulse Asia Survey results about the awareness and knowledge of Filipino adult voters about charter change prove that the approach adopted in the Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 is appropriate,” Garbin said.
“Citizens will have the time to have their say during their public consultations and when they vote during the plebiscite, not through a survey. Our point is to allow voters to vote on the issues. Voters, at the very least, deserve that,” he added.
For their part, Garbin said the Ako Bicol party-list will inform the public of the need for Charter change.
“Concerns about the timing can be addressed in the coming weeks and months. AKO BICOL Party-list will inform citizens of the necessity of charter change now, ” Garbin explained.
“We do not want to keep passing on this economic problem to future administrations. That is irresponsible. The responsible thing to do is solve this problem now,” he added.
Earlier, Pulse Asia said that surveys conducted from March 6 to 10 showed that 72 percent of the respondents have been aware about Charter change proposals when they were questioned by the polling firm, with only 28 percent saying that they only heard about it during the survey proper.
While this number is higher than what surveys a year ago showed, only eight percent of the same respondents believe that the 1987 Constitution should be amended now, while a staggering 88 percent said it should not be touched.
READ: Pulse Asia: Most Filipinos don’t think now is the right time for Cha-cha
Pulse Asia said the 88 percent of respondents who disagree with constitutional amendments can be classified into the following:
- 14 percent who said that the Constitution should not be amended now but it may be amended sometime in the future — with six percent saying that it can be done under the current administration and eight percent saying under the next administration
- 74 percent who said that the Constitution should not be amended now nor any other time
With these results, lawmakers from the House of Representatives’ Makabayan bloc believe that the this should be enough to stop Charter change proposals.
In a statement on Wednesday, ACT Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro said with almost 90 percent of Pulse Asia’s respondents opposing Charter change, the government should just spend more time and resources in addressing pressing problems.
READ: Solons on Filipinos not being pro-Cha-cha: Focus on food prices, salaries
Last March 20, the House passed on third reading RBH No. 7, which seeks to amend the 1987 Constitution by amending restrictive economic provisions.
READ: House approves RBH 7 on third reading
If no changes are made by both Houses, and if it is ratified in a plebiscite, three provisions would 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