Another Cha-cha resolution needed to push for political amendments

While his Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1 seeks changes to the 1987 Constitution’s economic and territorial provisions only, Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin has admitted that other lawmakers can also push for political amendments such as term extension and new term limits. — Photo by Gabriel Pabico Lalu

MANILA, Philippines — While his Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1 seeks changes to the 1987 Constitution’s economic and territorial provisions only, Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin has admitted that other lawmakers can also push for political amendments such as term extension and new term limits.

But Garbin said lawmakers need to file another resolution tackling these political amendments.

Garbin, in an interview on Tuesday after he filed RBH No. 1, was asked regarding the public’s opposition to charter change (Cha-cha) proposals, primarily out of fear that constitutional amendments are only aimed at securing longer terms for politicians.

In response, Garbin said that it is true that lawmakers can propose changes to the Constitution, but reminded the public that voters are still the ones responsible for ratifying, approving, or rejecting the amendments.

“I always say this, in a constituent assembly, we can propose anything but conclude nothing, because there’s always this twin requirement, which is the proposal and the ratification of the sovereign Filipino people.  So at the end of the day, it is the sovereign Filipino people who will approve or reject the same,” he explained to reporters.

“So we lawmakers, given this constitutional duty and mandate, and power to propose amendments to the Constitution, we still recognize that the people are the ones who will approve the proposal,” he added.

When pressed further as to whether political amendments like term extension and removal of term limits will be discussed once a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly convenes, Garbin clarified that proponents would have to file another resolution since his RBH No. 1 only tackles economic and territorial provisions.

“Well, they have to file another Resolution of Both Houses that incorporates amendments or proposes amendments to the political provision.  But as of now, what we have filed is just for Article I, XI, XIV, and XVI, conspicuously absent is the political provision,” Garbin noted.

“There is nothing to be worried about, in fact, if you base it on the record, 18th and 19th Congress, their old fears should not surface.  Why? Because during the 18th, 19th Congress, the one submitted to the Senate was purely about economic provisions, there were no political provisions,” he said.

Garbin earlier filed Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1 on Tuesday, which seeks amendments to Articles I (National Territory), XII (National Economy and Patrimony), XIV (Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports), and XVI (General Provisions).

READ: Cha-cha on again: Changes to territorial, economic provisions pushed 

According to Garbin, he wants Article I of the Constitution to conform with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos), and to incorporate the award from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 2016.

The PCA award stated that the Philippines has exclusive rights over its waters, invalidating China’s nine-dash line territorial claim for lack of legal and historical basis.

Garbin’s RBH No. 1 is almost similar to the RBH No. 7, which was approved by the House during the 19th Congress, save for the inclusion of Article I.

Last March 2024, the House of Representatives approved RBH No. 7, which proposed adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in sections involving ownership of education establishments, public utilities, and advertising.

This means that Congress, if RBH No. 7 were ratified, would have the power to decide the percentage of foreign ownership in companies within the sectors of public utilities, basic education, and advertising. Garbin’s RBH No. 1 also seeks the same amendments, but more industries are included.

READ: House approves RBH 7 on third reading

Garbin said he will endeavor to explain what RBH No. 1 is all about, to avoid concerns that are usually attributed to Cha-cha proposals.

“Maybe we just have to explain the objective, because what is usually highlighted regarding Cha-cha are the negative aspects, sometimes fear-mongering, including misinformation about politics, when RBH 1 specifically mentions about amendments to Article I which is the National Territory, how will that be against the public when it agrees and proposes to include our victory at the arbitral tribunal at the Hague?” he asked.

“How can this be against the public if we want to widen our country’s business scope by encouraging foreign direct investment to come in, and giving Congress the flexibility to legislate those economic provisions whenever there’s a need to amend the same,” he added.

Earlier, Garbin and Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. separately said that there is enough time to tackle Cha-cha proposals, especially since past Congresses have approved slightly similar resolutions./coa