House fails to vote on Cha-cha resolution

MANILA, Philippines – The House of Representatives failed last night to approve on third and final reading a landmark resolution seeking to ease the restrictive economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

Attendance on the final day of the second regular session was at 267, or more than the three-fourths affirmative votes required from the 290-member House to approve Resolution of Both Houses 1 (RBH 1), principally authored by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.

However, it was unclear why RBH 1 was not put to a final vote when mustering such a large attendance was difficult even if the resolution enjoyed wide support in the chamber. It took nearly three hours to muster a quorum and for a while some House members thought the attendance would not be sufficient.

A senior administration lawmaker, who is a proponent of the RBH 1, was surprised by the development and surmised that the House leadership might have been overly cautious.

“We heard there could be some 29 (House members) who may vote against it, but some appeared to want to read it (resolution) first,” the lawmaker said.“Maybe the House leadership did not want to risk losing the vote by a small margin.”

A window of opportunity for RBH 1 could be on July 27 when the 16th Congress opens its third and final session.

If the chamber still fails to approve RBH 1 by that time, passage may be difficult as the House will be busy catching up on deliberations on the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law as well as crafting the proposed national budget for 2016.

“We really need this (RBH 1) if we are to compete with our neighbors in the Asean,” Belmonte told reporters yesterday afternoon. “This fundamental reform does not mean there will automatically be amendments now, but it will simply provide a key for the country to quickly respond to economic threats and opportunities and other developments,” he said.

RBH 1, which was approved on second reading last week, seeks to include the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in some sections of Articles XII (national economy and patrimony), XIV (education, science and technology, arts, culture and sports), and XVI (general provisions).

This means that the constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership on certain industries will remain until Congress enacts specific laws to remove or amend them.

Sen. Ralph Recto has filed a counterpart measure in the Senate. Senate President Franklin Drilon earlier committed to act on Recto’s version as long as RBH 1 hurdles the House.

Belmonte described the proposal as “the simplest yet more beneficially effective” Charter reform that will lead to the influx of foreign direct investments (FDI) as many industries continue to remain stagnant due to restrictions on the entry of foreign equity.

He said FDI, unlike capital passing through the stock market, generate jobs.

Belmonte allayed fears that lifting restrictions on foreign ownership on certain industries as well as land could lead to Filipinos being landless in their own country.

“Most of the lands in the Philippines are constitutionally considered forest lands, beyond the commerce of man. There’s no way that some rich guy can just come here and buy all our lands,” he said.

He said the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will start its economic integration next year and the Philippines still has nothing to entice foreign investors that its neighbors already have.

He also scoffed at warnings that RBH 1 could lead to amendments to the political provisions of the Constitution, particularly the lifting of term limits for elected officials.

“How can that be when we already closed the period of amendments and we’re in the process of approving it?” he said.

Earlier in the day, militant groups opposed to RBH 1 barricaded the gates leading to the Batasang Pambansa complex to express their opposition to the resolution.

The authors of the measure stressed the need for amending the economic provisions of the Constitution as its “restrictive” provisions were hampering the flow of foreign capital investments.

“Statistics show that despite the economic growth, poverty incidence remained constant for the past six years, thus the urgent need to address this issue,” the resolution said.

“Growing global interest in Asia provides an opportunity for the Philippines to compete for more investments,” it said.

Good start

For foreign business groups in the country, the approval of RBH 1 is a good start in making the country more attractive to investments and more responsive to the development needs of its people.

“RBH 1 is a starting point of a long process. It can show foreign countries that the Philippines will start changing the economy and (making it) investment friendly,” Japanese Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines Inc. vice president Nobuo Fujii said in a text message.

American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines senior adviser John Forbes said the approval of the resolution would allow future Congresses to set policies concerning economic restrictions on the Constitution.

“Approval will show the world that there is political will here to make changes that can improve the investment climate and ultimately enhance inclusive growth,” he said.

Henry Schumacher, vice president for external affairs of the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, also said in a text message the approval of the resolution would not only be beneficial in terms of attracting more investments to the Philippines and generating jobs but also in promoting competition.

Schumacher said it would be harder to get support for the resolution in the next Congress if the measure fails to hurdle the current legislature.

Foreign business groups have been calling for the lifting of economic restrictions in the Constitution to make the country a more attractive destination for investments.

Executive action

At Malacañang, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said removing prohibitive provisions in the Charter may be done through an executive action and not just through piecemeal legislation.

Lacierda said Congress – or the Senate and the House of Representatives – may just let the President do the job of amending prohibitive economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, just like what President Aquino did through Executive Order 184.

“Can we do this (economic charter change) by way of executive fiat? Yes, we have done that, by way of that executive order,” Lacierda, who teaches constitutional law, told Palace reporters in a briefing yesterday. EO 184 contains the Foreign Investment Negative List (FINL).

He said the President is empowered to take such a step to improve the economy and “make it more palatable” to foreign investors.

“We can do it by making better the mechanisms within what we have right now and going through executive action by way of EO 184,” Lacierda stressed.

The spokesman declined to comment on the Charter change tack being followed by House leadership.

“You know, I cannot speak for Speaker Belmonte, but my knowledge of what he proposes are the revisions of the economic provisions, nothing on the political. And I think that was explained by President Aquino,” Lacierda said.

EO 184 stipulates foreign ownership restrictions for lending companies, financial companies and investment houses, and allows foreigners to practice more professions in the country.

The presidential edict also removes the 49-percent ownership limit for lending companies as well as the 60 percent for financing companies and investment houses regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The FINL has replaced the 9th FINL based on EO 98 issued in 2012.

From the 2012 list of 26 professions, only pharmacy, radiologic and X-ray technology, criminology, forestry and law are now reserved for Filipinos.

No to Binay tack

On term limits for presidents and other elective officials, Lacierda said the administration does not subscribe to Vice President Jejomar Binay’s position that there should be no limit to officials seeking reelection.

At the Kapihan sa Manila Bay, Binay also said he is open to shortening the term of the president to four years but with one re-election like in the US.

Binay said a six-year term “is too long for a bad president and too short for a good president.”

“We don’t share the opinion of Vice President Binay, especially because the President firmly believes in a single term,” Lacierda said.

“Because the logic in a single-term presidency is that the President can focus on all that needs to be done within the six-year term,” he maintained.

“His responsibility after the six years is to ensure that good governance prevails during the six years, so that the people will want to see an extension of those six years by way of his successor, and for that particular reason we ask the question: Have you seen the benefits of daang matuwid?”

He said a President does not have to wait for another four years to make good on his promises.

“That’s why the President said, ‘we’re going to accomplish much in these six years,’ and he has done so. And I think everybody will concede that the President has done so much,” the spokesman said.

“There are things that need to be done further, but that has to be done and continued by the person who would follow the reforms under the tuwid na daan.”

At the Kapihan sa Manila Bay, Binay said politicians “should be allowed to serve as long as the people want them.”

Asked whether he supports Charter change, the Vice President said amendments to restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution should be made.

Meanwhile, the Confederation for Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE) said President Aquino’s comment on relaxing the term limit in the Constitution is a veiled order to his allies in Congress.

“The President seems so desperate for a successor that he is growing more unrealistic and imagines that he is still presidentiable,” COURAGE said.

“It is perceived that without an assured successor, the President will have a hard time dodging criminal prosecution after he is stripped of immunity when his term ends. It is believed that he would stand trial for allegations of criminal liability in the Disbursement Acceleration Program and the Mamasapano tragedy, among others,” COURAGE national president Ferdinand Gaite said.  – Paolo Romero, Delon Porcalla, Louella Desiderio, Helen Flores, Rhodina Villanueva