PHL business groups prefer charter change via constitutional convention

Two local business groups on Wednesday expressed their support for amending certain economic provisions in the Constitution, but said these changes should be made through a Constitutional Convention (Con Con) instead of a Constitutional Assembly (Con Ass) preferred by lawmakers in the House of Representatives.

 

Edgardo Lacson, president of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP), said allowing legislators to propose amendments to the Constitution by adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to the provisions they wish to change will “degrade” the Charter and reduce it to the level of an ordinary piece of legislation.

 

Representatives from ECOP and the  Philippine Association of Local Service Contractors (PALSCON) presented their views on Charter Change (Cha Cha) during the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments’ hearing on House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.’s proposal to amend the Constitution.

 

House Resolution No. 1 seeks to amend the following articles of the 1987 Constitution: Article II or the declaration of state principles and policies, Article XII on national economy and patrimony, and Article XVI which contains sections on foreign ownership.

 

In his proposal, Belmonte inserted the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" to certain portions of the Constitution to indicate that the current restrictions will remain in place until Congress acts to amend them.

 

Lacson warned that amending the Constitution through a Con Ass might lead to instability in the future since lawmakers in succeeding Congresses might reverse the changes made by lawmakers in the current Congress.

 

“[While] ECOP expresses its full confidence in the integrity and competence of the present Congress… we suggest that a Con Con be held with elected members [from the people]. This will promote participatory democracy and put restraint to any excess that might be made by any future Congress,” Lacson said.

 

Under Belmonte’s resolution, the amendments to the Constitution will be approved if the proposal garners three-fourths vote in the Senate and the House separately.

 

PALSCON president Boots Guerrero said leaving Congress to make amendments to the Constitution “might open the floodgates” for the passage of laws that might adversely affect local workers.

 

“[Having lawmakers] insert the phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ is unsettling to us and it may open the floodgates [for the passage] of laws that can negatively impact the the country’s labor sector,” he said.

 

Guerrero added that the Philippines might be perceived as not being as competitive as other Southeast Asian countries if lawmakers move to open up more industries to the entry of foreign workers.

 

This was also the sentiment echoed by Atty. Antonio Abad, the legal counsel for the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations (COCOPEA), who said a Con Ass might reduce the Charter to a statute that can be amended again in the future.

 

“We’re afraid of the phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ because this means the law can be amended anytime by any Congress. This is dangerous because the economic provisions can always be subject to change,” he said.

 

But former Congressman and former Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, now the chairman of the group Think Tank Inc., said it will be difficult for lawmakers to change the economic provisions in the future since the proposed amendments must be supported by “an overwhelming amount” of facts and other pieces of evidence.

 

He threw his support behind Belmonte’s Cha-cha proposal, saying Congress should be given the flexibility to make changes to the Constitution.

 

“The most practical way to amend the Constitution will be through Speaker Belmonte’s resolution…. the flexibility of allowing congress make changes is more practical.

 

"There are situations now that may be usually effective and relevant, but they might change many years from now. The flexibility of allowing Congress to make changes [to the Constitution] will be more practical than embedding them in the Constitution," he said.

 

The Makabayan bloc in the House earlier warned that amending the Constitution will “spell doom” for the Philippines since it will pave the way for foreigners to increase their ownership of lands and private corporations.

 

Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga, however, said the public must assume “in good faith” that lawmakers in any Congress will craft legislation benefiting the country.

 

“We [should] always assume that legislators will make laws for the benefit of the people. With the growing changes and fast-paced nature of the economy, legislators should have the right to amend economic provisions for the good of the country,” he said. — ELR, GMA News